HAPPY 100TH BIRTHDAY

Today is the 100th birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was a man who loved his country deeply and unabashedly. He was optimistic, witty, and sharp as a tack. He was a consummate diplomat who was able to negotiate the treacherous waters of the Cold War with skill and aplomb. He believed that the country, when it's free markets are left unfettered, could overcome just about anything.

His dislike of big government was legendary. My favorite saying of his was what he described as the nine scariest words in the english language - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Here are some more words of wisdom from the Gipper.

On government:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Man is not free unless government is limited.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

On politics:

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.

I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

On his age:

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

"I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience."

On social issues:

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

On freedom:

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

On politics and religion:

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.

If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement.

Ronald Reagan ushered in a twenty year period of prosperity.  His increased militarization during the Cold War helped bring down the Soviet Union, whose command economy simply could not keep up.  His unapologetic love of country inspired an entire generation - even ultra-liberal Bruce Springsteen wasn't ashamed to say he was born in the USA. 

The media's incessant attempts since the midterm election rout to make President Obama into the reincarnation of the Gipper are laughable, at best.  No doubt Reagan himself would have a few choice words of his own for the comparison.  It's impossible to say what he would think of the current administration, but here are two speeches that might shed some light on the subject:

On the economy, from Feb. 5, 1981



On the dangers of socialized medicine, from a radio address in 1961:



Like many great leaders, his words still inspire.  Celebrating his centennial has reminded the country of his wisdom and leadership at a time when both seem to be in scarce supply.  Happy birthday, Gipper.  Hope you're enjoying your mansion in heaven!

VOID

A Florida federal district judge found Obamacare's individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and argued that since the mandate was an integral part of the legislation, the entire bill should be declared void:

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The best part, though, is that Judge Vinson used then-candidate Obama's own words against his signature legislation (via the Washington Times):

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

As the kids say, 'aw, snap!'.

The feds have sworn to appeal the ruling (no doubt that isn't the only swearing going on), and so it is on to the 11th Circuit.  There have been requests to skip the appeals and take it directly to the Supreme Court, but the Dept. of Justice refuses to fast track the process.  Why skip to the final authority when we can spend millions of taxpayer and state dollars dragging this thing through the appeals process?   

A DoJ mouthpiece stated that:

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

Well imagine that.  Repealing Obamacare will somehow stop SCHIP, Medicaid and Medicare from serving the people who need it.  How did that happen?  Or could it be that it's yet another straw man argument from the left in a desperate ploy to gin up support?  You know, scare all those old and poor people and parents into thinking they will lose SCHIP or Medicare/aid if Obamacare is repealed.   Well, it's time to call BS on this ridiculous line of thinking right now.  If this nightmare of a bill is struck down, those programs will continue on as usual - which still isn't good in the case of Medicare, but isn't as bad as with Obamacare.  Actually, repeal will save having $177 billion stripped from the Medicare Advantage program alone, which would have effectively done away with the popular program's perks.

Let's also address the spin about Obamacare "saving" over $200 billion in it's first decade, while we're at it. What a load of bunk.   Now technically speaking, it's true, because the law will be taxing us to death $800+ billion over the next 10 years, while the actual cost of Obamacare for those first 10 years will be about $600 billion - thus $200 billion in "savings".  Unfortunately, those $800+ billion in taxes will only be covering 6 years of the decade.  So how much will we be "saving" in the next decade and beyond?  Or will we only be offering 6 years of coverage per decade of taxation from here on out?

This law is a terrible thing for our country.  The few things that are good about it - no more preexisting conditions, for instance (which is easily regulated, no 'comprehensive overhaul' required) - are far outweighed by the things that are bad about it, like, well, $800 billion of new taxes, for starters, as well as the fact that the bill will now be forcing people to buy a good or service (not to mention it is so convoluted and byzantine that it will take years - and lots of lawsuits, no doubt - to figure out).  It would be far easier to repeal and replace than "fix" Obamacare.

What seems to have been lost in the debate is the fact that we are forgetting how we were originally sold the need for health care "reform".  Let's not forget that the original argument for comprehensive reform was because there were so many people uninsured namely because they couldn't afford it.  Well, all that has happened is that those same people still can't afford insurance, but now they face fines and penalties if they don't comply - enforced by the dreaded IRS, no less.  Not to mention the increase in rates since Obamacare passed means even more people can't afford insurance now.  Way to legislate, 111th Congress! 

Above and beyond all that, how good can the bill possibly be if over 700 companies, unions and even states have received waivers protecting them from it?  Many of those companies and unions were big supporters of the law while it was being shoved down our throats working it's way through Congress.  Now that they have to live under it and are seeing the real numbers involved, suddenly it's waiver city.  It's no surprise the unions got waivers - there was talk back during the making of this mess of a law to waive them from certain responsibilities.    Since they couldn't do it by the front door, they just snuck around the back. 

This decision was big, for a few reasons.  First, not only does Judge Vinson say that the mandate is unconstitutional, he also says the necessary removal of that unconstitutional clause makes the entire bill collapse, and as such, the entire bill should be struck down.  Second, his 78 page decision will be closely scrutinized by future appeals courts as well as the Supreme Court.   It is well reasoned and very thorough, and will present quite an obstacle for the DoJ in future appeals.  Third, this gives those in opposition to the law a second wind and affirmation that their argument is sound.  Oh, and the professional left is trying to say that the score is 2-2, which apparently in their world means it's some sort of judicial draw.  Unfortunately for them, the two findings in their favor are from lower courts, which means this finding, as well as the one preceeding it, both overrule the two earlier findings.  It's not about how many decisions go your way, it is the standing of the court that counts. 
Ultimately it is up to the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, that could be years away.  In the meantime, this is a strong victory for supporters of repeal, and a big blow to the DoJ's case.  Good job, Bill McCollum, Pam Bondi, et al!

STATE OF THE UNION - 2011 EDITION

Last night's State of the Union address was much like other SOTU's.  Bland, long on length and short on substance.  Don't get me wrong, this SOTU is not unique in it's  - they're all like that.  It's the nature of the beast.  However, this speech did stand out for a few reasons, but they were mostly distortions and half-truths creative modifications of the parameters of certain situations.

So, was I the only one who burst out laughing when President Obama said he would veto any bill with earmarks in it that comes across his desk?  Puh-leeze.  We've heard that one before, haven't we?  Not even Harry Reid is buying into it -  he actually put it into perspective quite nicely, via ABC News (emphasis mine):

“Without any question,” Reid replied. “I understand it’s great for an applause line, but it’s really not solving anything to do with the deficit. It’s only for show.”


“So you’re saying that earmarks will be back?” said Karl.

“Of course they’ll be back,” said Reid.

Every suggestion for improving the national situation involved a government based 'solution', usually in the form of spending.  Or, as President Obama prefers, "investment".  I'd like to see a poll on how many people buy the "investment" line, as opposed to those who know it is just progressive-ese for more spending.  You would think that he would have learned by now that throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.  Not even $5 trillion.

Did anyone else have a deja vu moment when he talked about an infrastructure spending bill?  Um, didn't we do that already?  That turned out well.  I seem to recall it wasn't really popular, either.  I had to stifle a laugh when he mentioned all the construction jobs created by the Porkulus bill.   Perhaps his staff are filtering the news for him.  Whatever the case may be, it was a ludicrous statement.

At least this year he admitted that America is a great country.  That's new.  Too bad he saved it for the very end, when everyone had already tuned out.  Maybe next year he'll put it at the beginning of the address, where it's usually mentioned.  He was more upbeat this year, which was nice, and not chastising members of one of the other two branches of government was certainly appreciated.   The speech was delivered well, as usual, although the breathy emphasis on certain words was a new and, after a while, annoying addition to his speaking style.  And yes, the smoked salmon joke was funny, I have to admit.  Just a thought, though - when proposing a government answer for every problem, perhaps it's better not to remind anyone how byzantine, redundant and/or ineffective government can be, no matter how funny the reference.  His tone was, for the most part, upbeat and warm (perhaps an attempt to cozy up to an electorate that has cooled towards him), but there was a serious lack of direction in the text.  Unfortunately, the only path he really mapped out for us was a one way trip to the investment-driven poorhouse.

It would have been nice if he had mentioned the disaster of epic proportions that hit our country in 2010 - the Gulf oil spill.  Not a word was mentioned about it, which is remarkable.  But, then again, it hasn't warranted mention anywhere since shortly after they capped the well.  How's the cleanup going?  Any word on where that 22 mile long plume went?  I guess one of the largest natural disasters our nation has ever seen doesn't deserve mention in the State of the Union speech.  And why should it?  After all, it's not like it's a problem anymore - he got the damn hole plugged, didn't he?  No need to remind the public of the fumbling, ham-handed, ineffective way it was handled, now is there?

All in all, this attempt at centrism and triangulation was tepid.  He and his speech writers were in uncharted territory, and it showed.  In the grand scheme of things, this isn't the worst SOTU - but it sure as heck wasn't the best, either.

Oh, and I hope "Winning the Future" isn't the new Obama 2012 campaign slogan, because someone else has already claimed it.

AH, CIVILITY

The House voted to repeal Obamacare today, 245-189.  It comes as no surprise, just as it won't be surprising when Harry Reid pretends HR2 doesn't exist and refuses to bring it up for a vote. 

This was the first full debate on the House floor since the Tuscon shootings.  The new Era of Civility™  has started off with quite a bang (am I allowed to say that anymore?).  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)  got the civility theater going today with his comparison of his Republican peers with Nazi propagandist extraordinaire, Joseph Goebbles. 

What class.  What style.  What civility(?).

Maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the term "civility".  After all, I'm conservative, so I must be mentally deficient, right (just ask Janeane Garofalo)?  Well, according to Merriam-Webster, civility is:

a polite act or expression

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but comparing more than half of your colleagues to a vicious,  soulless slaughterer of innocents on a massive scale seems a bit, well, uncivil, does it not?

When questioned about his...unique take on civility, his answer was quite a feat of verbal gymnastics (via HotAir):

“I don’t think I was comparing the Republicans to Goebbels. I was saying that lies are lies and Goebbels was the great perpetrator of lies and that’s a danger, and if you look at Goebbels you can see the lie that he told about Jews which he constantly did, became considered fact in Germany that the Jews were evil, and people got involved and didn’t stand up.”…


“I think civility is not lying, and if you can’t come up and say that somebody is lying when they’re lying, then the lie becomes the truth. That’s not uncivil to say somebody lied,” he said.

So apparently, his definition of civility is "not lying".  Which dictionary did that definition come from, Rep. Cohen? 

Beyond that, what he has done is set up a sort of 'incivility word problem'.  If lies = lies + Goebbels = lies then lies = Republicans means Republicans = Goebbels.  Deductive reasoning, anyone? 

CNN, (former home of a political talkshow called Crossfire) in their desperation to set the 'tone' (and hopefully boost ratings), have become whimpering pc apologists.  The national attempt to have this 'conversation on violent rhetoric' has made it very clear to almost everyone (even the women on The View) that not using martial phraseology is nearly impossible, even in everyday, non-vitriolic, non-hate speech.  Sherri Shepard went so far as to throw her hands up in disgust and say, "I give up" after several attempts to describe how the crosshairs rhetoric was 'under fire'.

These phrases are commonly used because they are apt analogies.  Not being able to use common phrases like 'battleground', 'targeted', 'under fire', or even Joy Behar's comedic reference to 'killed it' should open up a whole new dialogue, the stifling of free speech. 

Ultimately though, we also need to have a dialogue on mental illness.  The biggest failure in this whole situation was that Loughner was obviously disturbed, the police and college were involved, and yet he never received any psychiatric help.  It seems Arizona's 5150 laws are pretty robust, though, considering how little Eric Fuller did to warrant a 72 hour psychiatric hold and evaluation (although the "ear necklace" thing was pretty creepy).  Perhaps if Loughner had undergone the same thing, 6 people wouldn't be dead today.  The ball was dropped here.  This kid was so crazy that people got a malevolent vibe just sitting near him.  Not just his teachers, but his fellow classmates feared for their lives to the point where they had planned out an exit strategy if he pulled a gun in class.   He built a shrine to a human skull in his backyard, for heaven's sake, and ranted about mind control through grammar online.  And yet, to date, there is no evidence that he had any sort of psychiatric evaluation whatsoever. 

Jared Loughner was crazy.  Period.  Rep. Giffords was unable to answer one nonsensical question from him back in 2007, and she was targeted.  In the ironic twist of the century, the non-conservative lunatic gunman tried to kill her not because of violent right-wing rhetoric, but, technically, for no rhetoric at all. 


Stifling speech to make a political point is unacceptable.  Yet again, the neo-pravda media, in their eternal conservative witch hunt, have attempted to 'frame' a debate that has nothing at all to do with the tragedy they are exploiting.  Here's a little hint guys - your job is to report the news, not opine on what you think might have motivated the killer.  And if you absolutely must, well, that's what editorials are for. 

As for people like Cohen, who demand civility from one side of their mouth while spewing vitriol out the other, you are a huge part of the problem.  This practice isn't about 'furthering debate', it's all about shutting down debate.  And that's NOT what this country is all about.  You may not be happy about what the opposition is doing, but repealing an unpopular bill is in no way equitable with the Final Solution.  Above and beyond that, if you insist, Rep. Cohen, on going down that path, that is your right as a citizen of this country.  However, you then forfeit your right to criticize anyone else who does so, or risk losing credibility permanently. 

BULLSEYE

Thought I'd share this cartoon from TownHall's Glenn Foden:

Looks about right....

MERRY CHRISTMAS

May God bless you and keep you on this most glorious of days.

JIMMY CARTER'S BIG THOUGHTS

In the long list of things Jimmy Carter messed up in his (thankfully) short term of office, from the gas shortages to staglation, from the Middle East to malaise, he stated in a  recent interview that his greatest failure was not getting reelected (via Real Clear Politics):




What a putz.

When asked what lesson he learned in office, he replied with two things:

“[N]ot to ever let American hostages be held for 444 days in a foreign country without extracting them.”

Ya think? (Maybe he should clue President Obama in on that one).  As for reason number two:

"I should have paid more attention to the organization of the Democratic party.  I was not only the leader of a nation, I was also leader of the Democratic party.  And I think I failed, in that respect, to keep the party united.  It was divided, and my reelection campaign between me and people with some loyalty to Senator Ted Kennedy, and that cost me a lot of votes."

So let's recap.  It wasn't the Middle East crisis he set off with his meddling in the affairs of Iran, it wasn't the gas shortage that had people waiting in line for hours for a few gallons of gas; it wasn't even stagflation or a lack of connection and engagement with the American people that caused them to vote in Reagan with a staggering 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49. 

As far as he's concerned, it was hostages and Kennedy.  For Carter, it's all about him, and yet it's never his fault.  Sound familiar?