Archive for January, 2010

What’s In A Name

January 29, 2010

Beck was on a tear the other day about the names liberals are using up. He made a pretty good point. They used to be liberals but that became a dirty word for them when they tarnished it too much so they have been moving to progressives for the past year or so but the astute among the media started dredging up the past, Wilson and FDR and their progressive movements so that has started to take on a nasty hue.

The popular thinking is that they are going to populists. Populists. What the heck is that supposed to mean. We all know what it is going to be, more of the same old crap but what do they want it to mean? The dictionary says it is a supporter of the rights and power of the people. We are all well aware that they do not stand for that but I think they would like us to believe they do.

Oddly enough Limbaugh was on the same thing the day before Chairman Zero’s SOTU address. He was telling his audience to watch for Zero to start calling his party “populists”. I have a handicap and cannot listen to Zero for more than thirty seconds or I get a horrible headache so I was not able to check but due to Limbaugh not going on about it the next day I’ll assume Zero didn’t make the big move yet.

Of course they were always Democrats but that was just a cover. The Republicans are actually Democrats now and the Democrats have become communists. Yes, they merely moved under the guise of Democrats to gain access to our political system. Anyway let’s keep our ears open for that smooth transition to populist.

Advertisements

Constitution Pt. 8

January 29, 2010

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I think this is pretty straight forward. If you have any questions please put them in the comments and I will answer them if I have to call Chairman Zero himself.

Left And Right

January 28, 2010

Some talking head on the radio said something to the effect that JFK would have been farther to the right than today’s Republicans. Heck, I think a lot of people have said that, I may even have written about that on this blog before, I don’t remember. But the point is, was that true or not?

I know I have spoke of similar things before but I really gave this some thought. I am old enough to remember JFK. I remember the things people were saying at the time. Conservatives were not happy with him at all. He was really not on track to be a great President. Most of the things that people attribute to him were just as a result of things he said, challenges he made, before he was killed. Look back and dig, how much did he really do? This may surprise you.

Glenn Beck had a piece a while back that illustrated how far to the left we have moved. At the time I remember thinking how he was right but now I am beginning to question my own thinking at the time. The Obama Presidency has stirred a lot of Patriots to life that have been laying dormant and living life. Now they are back in action and getting busy.

We are seeing that there are a lot of conservative thinkers out there and some of them are running for office and getting elected. I think the media discrediting itself so badly has had a lot to do with that. I know I would not want to run for election if the media was going to do a full investigation into my past. But now that so few people watch and take them seriously I could probably make the cut.

At any rate, I think we may not be as far to the left as I thought. A lot of people out there are big fans of the Constitution and they aren’t afraid to make it known. To see the Glenn Beck thing I was talking about click here. It’s after the little sing along, maybe three minutes in.

1 Term Or 2

January 27, 2010

Last week on ABC World News Chairman Zero said that he would rather be a really good 1 term President than a mediocre 2 term president. The host of the program where I heard this, Limbaugh I think,  said maybe he could be a mediocre 1 term President.

Now I don’t often disagree with Limbaugh but I think it’s really a stretch for Zero to make it to mediocre. Poor old Jimmy Carter out right sucked and he was better than Obama. I was there and I don’t recall the communistic BS that is being forced on the American people now. And at least we knew where Jimmy was born. Yeah, call me a birther, I’m a stickler for little details like not having a foreign President with his loyalties in Kenya.

You know, it’s not a big deal. You get a job you show the proper credentials to qualify yourself for the job. Heck, I’ve had to pee in a cup to get a job before, who does this guy think he is? If I have to pee in a cup to pay taxes he should be willing to show his birth certificate to waste them. And that’s just one point of contention with this jackal. I’m still looking for an indictment. This has got to be some kind of felony with all the laws we have on the books.

Anyway, to look at his smug mug spewing this BS go to the following link. I try to put some of these things on here so you can just click on them but I have not mastered it or they will not allow it. I don’t know which yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337

Gun Grabbing In Texas

January 26, 2010

Well, I wanted to write about the Chicago gun case before the Supreme Court but the only thing I could find is that Los Angeles has joined with Chicago. What a shock. But that’s not even on the docket yet. The case number by the way is 08-1497 for those of you who want to keep track for yourself. The Supreme Court’s web site is http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html . Just enter that case number on the docket search.

What I did run into during the course of my research was an incident in Texas. Apparently the Austin PD and the ATF decided to harass people selling guns in the parking lot at a gun show. Now in Texas this is fine and dandy. No one was breaking any laws but that didn’t detour the troops from doing their best to break it up. For a liberal slant on this from the ABC news affiliate Austin check this and watch the video http://www.infowars.com/texas-media-covers-shut-down-of-gun-show/ .

Now the mouthpiece for the “authorities” claims they are trying to stop the flow of weapons into Mexico which, as we all know, is bunk. And the liberal media tried to paint it as a civil dispute between the property owner and the gun show owner but I didn’t find any statement anywhere from the property owner. Besides which he is legally renting his hall to someone who is doing a legal business, I have never heard of a landlord having a problem with that.

Folks, it all boils down to one thing, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Greenhouse Gases

January 25, 2010

I was going to write about the media but then I thought about climate change and how it’s all but over. Then I thought about the EPA and their BS declaring carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas and I figured I better check. So I go to Climate Depot and there it is. A Politico headline “A cap-and-trade bill has a shot in the Senate”. So I go to the article and sure enough these jackals are planning legislation but with out the cap-and-trade part.

If the above isn’t enough to get your thong in a wad how about this? Voinovich, Lugar and Graham are all willing to work with the Democrats on this. Apparently the only one not playing nice with the Democrats is newly elected Scot Brown who, according to the Politico, “expressed skepticism that climate change is being caused by humans.” How long do you think it will be before he goes along with the pack (That’s right isn’t it? Jackals run in packs?).

Anyway this has gone way over the deep end here. I am skeptical that carbon monoxide (the poison stuff out of tailpipes) is a greenhouse gas, much less carbon dioxide (the stuff trees breath in and you breath out). I also question the actual existence of greenhouse gases altogether. As far as I can see no real climate change has occurred. This is just the normal ebb and flow of the weather. How can a bunch of fools take something like that and turn it into this…   whatever expletive you desire.

Constitution Pt.7

January 22, 2010

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

So goes section 6. Now, in reading the first part what does it sound like to you? Treason, do you understand that? It’s defined as the act of betraying ones country. It sounds like they pretty much have it made in regards to being arrested doesn’t it? No wonder they think they can do as they please and are above the law.

Well that’s not quite true, in fact it’s quite the opposite.  I saw felony in there. Is bouncing a check a felony in your state? And breach of the peace is defined as follows; “any act which disturbs the public or even one person. It can include almost any criminal act causing fear or attempting intimidation, such as displaying a pistol or shouting inappropriately.” Shouting inappropriately? Disturbing even one person? Are you starting to see why these jackals do not like the Constitution?

The McCain-Feingold Act

January 21, 2010

The McCain-Feingold Act was ruled unconstitutional today by the Supreme Court. What does this mean? Well that is a complicated answer. McCain-Feingold in itself is not that old (2002), but the crux of the act hearkens back to the turn of the twentieth century when robber barons used their wealth to elect politicians that would do their bidding.

Valid arguments can be made both ways. It is, after all, freedom of speech, but who’s speech? Who speaks for the SEIU, GM, the AFLCIO, or GE? I rather think the First Amendment protection of free speech applies to individuals. Does that include individual entities? Then the questionable aspects of the candidate being beholding to the corporation or organization that funds the ad comes into play, as was the case with the robber barons.

I think the ruling is correct. The freedom of speech must be preserved. But this freedom must apply only to individuals. The individuals hiding behind these corporate and organizational names should not be insulated from prosecution and law suits by the same laws that allow them this freedom of speech. An individual should be put forth to stand accountable for the good as well as the bad if an organization desires this kind of consideration from the American people.

A case in point is when I worked for a large automobile manufacturer I was required to belong to a union, even though I did not want to. The union donated to the Democrat Party. I did not like that either. If this is the case I should have been able to bring suit against the individual who made this decision. Does that sound fair? I don’t recall a vote at the union hall to see if we were going to donate. They just did it.

Let’s look at that logically. I had to pay a portion of my income to a group just to keep my job. That sounds like the old protection money the gangsters took from merchants so they didn’t put them out of business. Next they took that same money and gave it to a cause that I not only did not believe in, but at the time, worked against (I was a Republican). What’s that quote about a man being made to pay for something he abhors?

At any rate, we’ve gone back in time about a century on this law. Is that good? I don’t know. It seems like it should be so why do I have all this fear?

The Anger

January 20, 2010

I heard today of a quote from “The Leader” (Chairman Zero), I believe it was Limbaugh who threw it out there, but it was an interview with Steponallofus. I’m going to have to paraphrase here but in this quote Chairman Zero said, “…the same anger that elected me, elected Scot Brown. People want change…” Again, I’m not certain of the exact wording and it was supposed to be for release tomorrow so I am not able to find it yet (if I do I will put a link here) but this is pretty much what he said as I wrote it down when I heard it.

Limbaugh immediately attacked saying that the same anger at George Bush was not the same anger that elected Scot Brown. I beg to differ, and the thought of agreeing with Zero gives me chills, but I think he got one right. If you can find the entire quote (sorry, I was driving at the time) you will see that his intention in the statement was that people are sick and tired of politics as usual and this is exactly what elected Zero even though he turned out to be more of the same times ten, and it’s exactly what elected Scot Brown.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Scot Brown will not be our weak link in this health care enslavement initiative, in fact I believe he will be one of the best Senators ever elected. Anybody that drives an old truck is on my plus list right away. But the fact is that we need to look at the rest of the chain. Sphincter already defected and there are several rinos lined up for deals (Snowe comes to mind) that we need to keep the pressure on. Harry Reid has already come out and said that this will have to wait so you know he’s planning a midnight vote somewhere down the line.

Look folks, all I’m saying is Limbaugh is right about the rest of it. Reid is on his way out, and he knows it, so he’s looking to leave a legacy. And enslaving the American people while taking over health care is just the ticket. BEWARE.

Scot Brown Wins

January 19, 2010

Yes. Fox News has just called it a win for Scot Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race. Once again, gridlock has been restored to the federal gubmint and it is safe for normal people to walk the streets again.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html