I was going to post this as an update to my last post on Operation Fast and Furious but decided it was so important that it needed it's own post.
In testimony this week, Bill Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office stated to investigators that he had sent an email to a longtime friend in the White House that included information on Operation Fast and Furious. Eh, no big deal, right? A low-level exchange of information between friends that never went beyond their circle of two.
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Friday, July 29, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
THE REAL BONE OF CONTENTION
Let's face it - the real reason the DNC and Obama's OfA are freaking out over and attempting to organize and expand the Wisconsin budget protests isn't just because of the fact that if Gov. Walker has his way he will end collective bargaining. There is a much deeper issue at stake, and it's something that isn't getting much play in the media, because it's not a sympathetic position ("It's for the kids!"™). Walker's budget will also force unions to collect their own dues and, most importantly of all, have an annual membership vote. That is the union buster, right there. If Walker's plan goes through, union membership in the public sector will sink like a stone.
This is, after all, a forced unionization state - if you work for the state of Wisconsin, you are a union member. Period. The dues are automatically garnished from your wages by the state; you have no choice. The thing Walker is attempting to allow, which the unions and the DNC are desperate to stop, is employee choice over whether they want to be in the union or not. According to this poll, there's a good chance that a healthy majority will choose "not". Especially when those dues no longer magically disappear from their paychecks, sight unseen, and they have to cut a check themselves every month. People tend to stop and think, to assess something more closely, when they are the ones writing the check for it - especially in a recession.
The most dangerous development in Madison is the annual membership vote. On a personal note, years ago I started working at a large corporation. While I was going through the orientation process I was heavily pressured to join the union. I did, as did most new hires. But as I went through my first year, I realized that, being in a right to work state, union and non-union members had the same contracts - with the exception that non-union didn't have the pressure of a threat to strike every time the contract was up for renewal. And I mean every time. And so, like a large majority of my fellow employees, on my one year anniversary I dropped out of the union. Wisconsin state employees don't have this luxury, but Walker wants to change all that. It's not so much that he is trying to bust the unions as make the conditions possible for them to bust themselves.
Make no mistake, though - the DNC and OfA aren't coming to the rescue because this is an "assault on unions"; they are charging into the fray because it's an assault on the their campaign contributions.
The potential drop in membership in turn robs some of the DNC's biggest contributors of their forced dues, which they so generously donate to their pet politicians. President Obama himself owes a huge debt to unions, and no doubt was counting on their support come 2012. So the reason why the DNC and OfA have thrust themselves into a state issue is certainly no mystery. The only thing under debate, really, is the appropriateness of their actions.
This isn't about "the little people", this isn't really even about collective bargaining. It's about keeping forced membership, which will allow the government/union circle jerk to continue unchecked. It's just amazing how hysterical some people become over corporate cronyism, and yet shout "power to the people" when it comes to union cronyism. The problem is, public union cronyism is even more dangerous, because while a corporation greases palms and buys politicians to help create or prevent legislation/regulation that might enable their companies to have an edge in the marketplace (which might have the happy result of job creation/economic growth), unions grease the palms and buy the politicians with whom they negotiate their salaries and benefits. It's like having union bosses on both sides of the table, only the "corporation" they are nailing to the wall is the American taxpayer (who is, at least according to Paul Krugman, the new mortal enemy of democracy).
So don't be fooled by the DNC and unions (but I repeat myself) lamenting "worker's rights". In the end, all they care about is the bottom line. Ultimately the bottom line Walker is offering could be potentially crippling for them in the upcoming election cycle. And that's all that really matters - the next election cycle.
Let's hope the gravy train has left the station by then.
This is, after all, a forced unionization state - if you work for the state of Wisconsin, you are a union member. Period. The dues are automatically garnished from your wages by the state; you have no choice. The thing Walker is attempting to allow, which the unions and the DNC are desperate to stop, is employee choice over whether they want to be in the union or not. According to this poll, there's a good chance that a healthy majority will choose "not". Especially when those dues no longer magically disappear from their paychecks, sight unseen, and they have to cut a check themselves every month. People tend to stop and think, to assess something more closely, when they are the ones writing the check for it - especially in a recession.
The most dangerous development in Madison is the annual membership vote. On a personal note, years ago I started working at a large corporation. While I was going through the orientation process I was heavily pressured to join the union. I did, as did most new hires. But as I went through my first year, I realized that, being in a right to work state, union and non-union members had the same contracts - with the exception that non-union didn't have the pressure of a threat to strike every time the contract was up for renewal. And I mean every time. And so, like a large majority of my fellow employees, on my one year anniversary I dropped out of the union. Wisconsin state employees don't have this luxury, but Walker wants to change all that. It's not so much that he is trying to bust the unions as make the conditions possible for them to bust themselves.
Make no mistake, though - the DNC and OfA aren't coming to the rescue because this is an "assault on unions"; they are charging into the fray because it's an assault on the their campaign contributions.
The potential drop in membership in turn robs some of the DNC's biggest contributors of their forced dues, which they so generously donate to their pet politicians. President Obama himself owes a huge debt to unions, and no doubt was counting on their support come 2012. So the reason why the DNC and OfA have thrust themselves into a state issue is certainly no mystery. The only thing under debate, really, is the appropriateness of their actions.
This isn't about "the little people", this isn't really even about collective bargaining. It's about keeping forced membership, which will allow the government/union circle jerk to continue unchecked. It's just amazing how hysterical some people become over corporate cronyism, and yet shout "power to the people" when it comes to union cronyism. The problem is, public union cronyism is even more dangerous, because while a corporation greases palms and buys politicians to help create or prevent legislation/regulation that might enable their companies to have an edge in the marketplace (which might have the happy result of job creation/economic growth), unions grease the palms and buy the politicians with whom they negotiate their salaries and benefits. It's like having union bosses on both sides of the table, only the "corporation" they are nailing to the wall is the American taxpayer (who is, at least according to Paul Krugman, the new mortal enemy of democracy).
So don't be fooled by the DNC and unions (but I repeat myself) lamenting "worker's rights". In the end, all they care about is the bottom line. Ultimately the bottom line Walker is offering could be potentially crippling for them in the upcoming election cycle. And that's all that really matters - the next election cycle.
Let's hope the gravy train has left the station by then.
Friday, September 24, 2010
FUNNY BUSINESS
Today our federal government officially jumped the shark. It couldn't have been more apparent if they had called Ted McGinley to testify instead of Stephen Colbert. Don't get me wrong, Colbert is great. He's a funny guy. But how in the world is he qualified to testify on immigration - in character, no less?
The reality show that is Washington politics of late has gone too far. By inviting Colbert, Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) turned the entire immigration debate, as well as congressional hearings, into a joke. And not even a good one, with all due respect to Mr. Colbert, who was doing his satirical best:
Okay, so he was kind of funny. In an awkward, trainwreck-y kind of way. You really can't fault him for doing it - what entertainer in their right mind would give up a chance to play the Hill? Even the famous Onion, the University of Wisconsin's hilariously satirical newspaper/website, couldn't have dreamed this up. This will boost his ratings phenominally, and he will come out of this just fine. The people who invited him to speak, however, may not fare so well. Unless, of course, Rep. Lofgren is angling for her own show in case she loses on Nov. 2nd - in this job climate, it's every congressperson for themselves, and sometimes you have to think outside of the box!
Some democrats seem to be slaves to the cult of personality, and Colbert's appearance plays more like a desperate attempt for the party to be seen as hip and cool than a legitimate attempt to investigate policy issues. The fact that this opens them up to ridicule and lowers the profile of the US governement as a whole seems to matter little to Lofgren. At least Rep. John Conyers )D-MI) tried to stop the circus and preserve the dignity of our legislative branch. He most likely saw what many other people saw - the serious issue of immigration reform, the U.S. Congress and the democrat party in general being made a mockery of in one fell swoop.
In a country where Comedy Central's Daily Show host Jon Stewart is seen as the most trusted name in news, this irresponsible dog and pony show will only further blur the line between real world politics and political satire.
At least we got a laugh out of it.
The reality show that is Washington politics of late has gone too far. By inviting Colbert, Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) turned the entire immigration debate, as well as congressional hearings, into a joke. And not even a good one, with all due respect to Mr. Colbert, who was doing his satirical best:
Okay, so he was kind of funny. In an awkward, trainwreck-y kind of way. You really can't fault him for doing it - what entertainer in their right mind would give up a chance to play the Hill? Even the famous Onion, the University of Wisconsin's hilariously satirical newspaper/website, couldn't have dreamed this up. This will boost his ratings phenominally, and he will come out of this just fine. The people who invited him to speak, however, may not fare so well. Unless, of course, Rep. Lofgren is angling for her own show in case she loses on Nov. 2nd - in this job climate, it's every congressperson for themselves, and sometimes you have to think outside of the box!
Some democrats seem to be slaves to the cult of personality, and Colbert's appearance plays more like a desperate attempt for the party to be seen as hip and cool than a legitimate attempt to investigate policy issues. The fact that this opens them up to ridicule and lowers the profile of the US governement as a whole seems to matter little to Lofgren. At least Rep. John Conyers )D-MI) tried to stop the circus and preserve the dignity of our legislative branch. He most likely saw what many other people saw - the serious issue of immigration reform, the U.S. Congress and the democrat party in general being made a mockery of in one fell swoop.
In a country where Comedy Central's Daily Show host Jon Stewart is seen as the most trusted name in news, this irresponsible dog and pony show will only further blur the line between real world politics and political satire.
At least we got a laugh out of it.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
NO GO LOGO
So, is it me, or does the new Democrat logo that Tim Kaine was all excited about the other day look remarkably like a target? Not to mention it's a little boring. At least Obama's logo had flair, not to mention there was a bit of a Pepsi-inspired pleasant subliminal connection to it. The DNC logo (and the website, really) is very...industrial looking. They should have stuck with the jackass. At least then they would be a moving target.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
PRIMARY DAY! Updated
Today is primary day here in Florida. There are two races that are particularly interesting, at least from where I sit in Central Florida, and one that I simply can't wait to be over. The first is the Senate democrat primary pitting Rep. Kendrick Meek v. Jeff Greene. The second is to determine which republican will be running against Rep. Alan Grayson in CD 8. It's a pretty wide field (here's a rundown on where they stand on the issues), but the two front-runners seem to be Daniel Webster and Todd Long - at least, if the number of yard signs is any indicator.
As an unaffiliated voter, I am not eligible to vote in the primaries so I'm playing the waiting game, hoping the primary voters make good choices. The district 8 primary is more important to me than the senate primary right now, simply because we need someone strong to go against Grayson because Grayson most definitely must go. Of the seven challengers, two seem to be leading the pack. Todd Long came close to defeating Ric Keller in the '08 primary, so he has recent name recognition, and Daniel Webster has been in local and state politics for decades. Both seem pretty strong, Strong enough to beat Grayson? God, I hope so.
Which brings us to the Senate primary. The democrat primary outcome is of the utmost importance to both Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. If Meek wins, Rubio will, at least accoording to polling so far, win the general election. Crist has been peeling off democrats from Meek in preliminary polling, making Meek a weak candidate, but he's not attracting enough democrats to put himself over the top, thus splitting the democrat vote and handing Rubio the win in the three-way race.
Jeff Greene seems to be damaged goods at this point, because of the stories that have been making the rounds about the wild parties on his yacht. While there are plenty of allegations but no proof of drug use or any other illegal activities, the stories are rather unsenatorial (as are the racy pictures), and the references to the 145ft yacht and the ultra-rich celebrity lifestyle of billionaire Greene strikes a discordant tone in these tough times. If Greene wins the primary, Crist will attract many democrats who are underwhelmed by Greene, which would push Crist over the finish line ahead of Rubio.
There is scuttlebutt that even if Meek wins, democrat groups, including the DSCC, will support Crist, as he seems to have a better shot of winning than Meek and has indicated that, as an independent, he would caucus with the democrats. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that the DNC would back Crist over Meek (at least out in the open). First, Crist is unreliable, as his jump from republican to independent solely to save his political hide illustrates, and second (and more importantly), Meek is an african-american democrat congressman running for a seat in the Senate - a Senate that will be seeing it's only black member, Roland Burris, leaving office in January. If the DNC were to throw their support behind Crist instead of Meek, they run the risk of bad blood with the Congressional Black Caucus and potentially alienate the black community in the vital swing state that is Florida.
If, however, Jeff Greene should happen to win the primary (a slim chance, as he's down 10 points in the polls), definitely expect the DNC to back Crist. There has already been a national democrat-run fundraiser for him - perhaps a little bet-hedging? It will be interesting to see what happens if Meek wins. Dilemma, dilemma!
Finally, there is the McCollum/Scott faceoff. This has been a hotly contested primary, with attack ads airing ad nauseum. The winner will face democrat Alex Sink for the governor's mansion. This race in particular has been attack-oriented and there has been so much mud slung that many Floridians are feeling a little dirty from it all. McCollum is the front-runner, but Scott is fighting to the finish. With a little luck, the general election will be more civil. There has been so much finger-pointing and lesser-of-two-evils style campaigning that it would be nice to actually hear what the various candidates would like to accomplish if they win, instead of merely demonizing their opponents. The McCollum/Scott matchup was particularly virulent. Frankly, with all of the attacks, neither one of them are very appealing right now. Hopefully, once the winner is announced, we will learn what he stands for - that would be a refreshing change.
Remember the days when attack ads were the last ditch effort at the end of the campaign? Ah, the good old days. Where once that tactic was called "going negative" it is now simply called "campaigning". Instead of lists of pros and cons for each candidate, we are inundated with lists of cons only. Which is actually rather fitting, considering how ethically challenged recent politicians have been. A list of "cons" indeed - it's known as a ballot.
Happy Voting!
UPDATE: The results are in - Kendrick Meek and Daniel Webster are moving on to the next round. As of this writing, Rick Scott is ahead with 47% of the vote, with 54% of precincts reporting. The race should be called in his favor soon. The players are now set, so let the games begin!
As an unaffiliated voter, I am not eligible to vote in the primaries so I'm playing the waiting game, hoping the primary voters make good choices. The district 8 primary is more important to me than the senate primary right now, simply because we need someone strong to go against Grayson because Grayson most definitely must go. Of the seven challengers, two seem to be leading the pack. Todd Long came close to defeating Ric Keller in the '08 primary, so he has recent name recognition, and Daniel Webster has been in local and state politics for decades. Both seem pretty strong, Strong enough to beat Grayson? God, I hope so.
Which brings us to the Senate primary. The democrat primary outcome is of the utmost importance to both Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. If Meek wins, Rubio will, at least accoording to polling so far, win the general election. Crist has been peeling off democrats from Meek in preliminary polling, making Meek a weak candidate, but he's not attracting enough democrats to put himself over the top, thus splitting the democrat vote and handing Rubio the win in the three-way race.
Jeff Greene seems to be damaged goods at this point, because of the stories that have been making the rounds about the wild parties on his yacht. While there are plenty of allegations but no proof of drug use or any other illegal activities, the stories are rather unsenatorial (as are the racy pictures), and the references to the 145ft yacht and the ultra-rich celebrity lifestyle of billionaire Greene strikes a discordant tone in these tough times. If Greene wins the primary, Crist will attract many democrats who are underwhelmed by Greene, which would push Crist over the finish line ahead of Rubio.
There is scuttlebutt that even if Meek wins, democrat groups, including the DSCC, will support Crist, as he seems to have a better shot of winning than Meek and has indicated that, as an independent, he would caucus with the democrats. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that the DNC would back Crist over Meek (at least out in the open). First, Crist is unreliable, as his jump from republican to independent solely to save his political hide illustrates, and second (and more importantly), Meek is an african-american democrat congressman running for a seat in the Senate - a Senate that will be seeing it's only black member, Roland Burris, leaving office in January. If the DNC were to throw their support behind Crist instead of Meek, they run the risk of bad blood with the Congressional Black Caucus and potentially alienate the black community in the vital swing state that is Florida.
If, however, Jeff Greene should happen to win the primary (a slim chance, as he's down 10 points in the polls), definitely expect the DNC to back Crist. There has already been a national democrat-run fundraiser for him - perhaps a little bet-hedging? It will be interesting to see what happens if Meek wins. Dilemma, dilemma!
Finally, there is the McCollum/Scott faceoff. This has been a hotly contested primary, with attack ads airing ad nauseum. The winner will face democrat Alex Sink for the governor's mansion. This race in particular has been attack-oriented and there has been so much mud slung that many Floridians are feeling a little dirty from it all. McCollum is the front-runner, but Scott is fighting to the finish. With a little luck, the general election will be more civil. There has been so much finger-pointing and lesser-of-two-evils style campaigning that it would be nice to actually hear what the various candidates would like to accomplish if they win, instead of merely demonizing their opponents. The McCollum/Scott matchup was particularly virulent. Frankly, with all of the attacks, neither one of them are very appealing right now. Hopefully, once the winner is announced, we will learn what he stands for - that would be a refreshing change.
Remember the days when attack ads were the last ditch effort at the end of the campaign? Ah, the good old days. Where once that tactic was called "going negative" it is now simply called "campaigning". Instead of lists of pros and cons for each candidate, we are inundated with lists of cons only. Which is actually rather fitting, considering how ethically challenged recent politicians have been. A list of "cons" indeed - it's known as a ballot.
Happy Voting!
UPDATE: The results are in - Kendrick Meek and Daniel Webster are moving on to the next round. As of this writing, Rick Scott is ahead with 47% of the vote, with 54% of precincts reporting. The race should be called in his favor soon. The players are now set, so let the games begin!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
BACK TO THE PLAYBOOK
Democrats are apparently going to be foregoing standing on a platform this election cycle, preferring instead to just proceed directly to the mud slinging, an event which is traditionally deployed in the final weeks of the election. Guess they don't have much else in their quiver these days.
According to the Washington Post:
The problem with this strategy is twofold.
First and foremost, voters are highly motivated this year, are issue driven and are paying very close attention. They want to know what the voting record is for the candidates and they want to know their stand on the issues. They won't have much patience for backbiting and mud slinging.
The second problem also lies in the unusual level of voter awareness this cycle. This time, though, what they are aware of is the playbook that is being used. This line of attack is directly, practically verbatim out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in the "Tactics" section - number four, to be exact:
Perhaps it's time to remind them of tactic number seven - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".
Stop changing the subject and clouding the debate with mud. It's time to deal with the real issues.
According to the Washington Post:
Jon Vogel, executive director of the DCCC, said Democrats are merely pointing out that some Republican recruits in competitive House races are "flawed candidates."
He added, "We have made this election a choice. . . . They're trying to run this national message in part about fiscal discipline, but they've recruited a number of candidates not credible to carry that message."
The problem with this strategy is twofold.
First and foremost, voters are highly motivated this year, are issue driven and are paying very close attention. They want to know what the voting record is for the candidates and they want to know their stand on the issues. They won't have much patience for backbiting and mud slinging.
The second problem also lies in the unusual level of voter awareness this cycle. This time, though, what they are aware of is the playbook that is being used. This line of attack is directly, practically verbatim out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in the "Tactics" section - number four, to be exact:
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Perhaps it's time to remind them of tactic number seven - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".
Stop changing the subject and clouding the debate with mud. It's time to deal with the real issues.
Monday, June 21, 2010
DEMOCRATIC DISARRAY
The democrat party seems to be hitting the skids. They are in deep denial over their prospects in November. They have plans to run on the passage of Obamacare - a program that is becoming more and more unpopular as time goes by. Their other option is to have their candidates run against George W. Bush. Again. But, then, what else have they got? Stimulus? Oil spill? Foreign relations? Yeah... better stick with Bush.
There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too. They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene. The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever? His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC. Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote. And I thought Republican candidates were bad.
Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers. She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters. In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story), there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme. Why is this my favorite part? Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters. Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant.
So how bizarre is this win? Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November. That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama. Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years. In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough.
It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner. Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.
Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep. Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.
There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too. They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene. The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever? His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC. Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote. And I thought Republican candidates were bad.
Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers. She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters. In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story), there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme. Why is this my favorite part? Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters. Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant.
So how bizarre is this win? Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November. That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama. Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years. In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough.
It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner. Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.
Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep. Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
AY CARAMBA!
The public disagreement between the Obama democrat machine and the state of Arizona has reached a new low. And that's really saying something.
First, other American cities decide to attack the economy of a fellow state during a recession.
The state responds to one particularly vehement city with a reminder that if they really want to boycott, they should go all in, reminding them of some other contracts they should consider cancelling. The bluff is called and both sides end up retreating into their respective corners.
Then a foreign head of state is not just allowed to chastise us for our own laws, but he is given a standing ovation by our government.
But wait, there's more! John Morton, head of ICE, steps in with his two cents on the matter, saying they may just refuse to process illegals from Arizona. Because, after all, it's not like their refusal to enforce the laws in the first place put Arizona in their dangerous, $2.7 billion per year predicament, right?
And now, like the sickeningly sweet cherry on top, the democrats have found a new gimmick to signal their disapproval. Bracelets.
Yes, that's right, bracelets. Apparently it's the thing for the season. Eeeevrybody's wearing them in DC. Expect bedazzled versions to pop up in Hollywood in 3...2...1....
How lame is this? Well, waaaaaay back in 2009 Remy Albillar from the Arizona Daily Wildcat said it best:
First, other American cities decide to attack the economy of a fellow state during a recession.
The state responds to one particularly vehement city with a reminder that if they really want to boycott, they should go all in, reminding them of some other contracts they should consider cancelling. The bluff is called and both sides end up retreating into their respective corners.
Then a foreign head of state is not just allowed to chastise us for our own laws, but he is given a standing ovation by our government.
But wait, there's more! John Morton, head of ICE, steps in with his two cents on the matter, saying they may just refuse to process illegals from Arizona. Because, after all, it's not like their refusal to enforce the laws in the first place put Arizona in their dangerous, $2.7 billion per year predicament, right?
And now, like the sickeningly sweet cherry on top, the democrats have found a new gimmick to signal their disapproval. Bracelets.
Yes, that's right, bracelets. Apparently it's the thing for the season. Eeeevrybody's wearing them in DC. Expect bedazzled versions to pop up in Hollywood in 3...2...1....
How lame is this? Well, waaaaaay back in 2009 Remy Albillar from the Arizona Daily Wildcat said it best:
But for all those “protesting X cause by raising awareness through X,” stop kidding yourself. Your commemorative, fashionable armband, pin, t-shirt or hat is not a legitimate form of protest. It’s an excuse to give yourself a pat on the back.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
ARIZONA AND CALDERON
Megyn Kelly went on the O'Reilly Factor tonight to discuss the Arizona immigration law. She not only read the law in question, SB 1070, she also read the federal immigration law as well as a few supreme court cases pertaining to the federal law.
This isn't good news for the 24% who oppose the law, because she found that the Arizona law is much like the federal law, with the exception that it is even more strict as far as what the police can and cannot do than the federal statute.
ooops. There goes that narrative!
No doubt her findings will get no press coverage whatsoever. Even though 71% of Arizonans approve of the legislation, 55% of Americans would like to see their states adopt similar legislation, and Arizona governor Jan Brewer has enjoyed a 19 point jump in her poll numbers since last month, according to Rasmussen. Check out Pew's polling numbers on the issue.
Thankfully, our esteemed Congress didn't embarrass themselves in their ignorance. Oh, wait.
No doubt their cheering on a foreign head of state as he attempts to dictate immigration policy to them is standard procedure. Doubtless, too, they will take his recommendation to reinstate the assault weapons ban under advisement. If we're really, really lucky, maybe he will tell us what to do about Cap and Trade and Iran as well. Dare to dream.
Perhaps someone in this administration will grow a spine and recommend Calderon get control of his own country before attempting to impose his views on this one. Things obviously aren't going well down there if one-third of the country are so desperate to get out that they are willing to run the gauntlet of a desert, coyotes (both animal and human), and border patrols. Let's face it - if Mexico wasn't such a disaster, we wouldn't have such a huge problem on our borders.
The fact that Obama and the democrats supported this pompous ass and his insulting behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.
This isn't good news for the 24% who oppose the law, because she found that the Arizona law is much like the federal law, with the exception that it is even more strict as far as what the police can and cannot do than the federal statute.
ooops. There goes that narrative!
No doubt her findings will get no press coverage whatsoever. Even though 71% of Arizonans approve of the legislation, 55% of Americans would like to see their states adopt similar legislation, and Arizona governor Jan Brewer has enjoyed a 19 point jump in her poll numbers since last month, according to Rasmussen. Check out Pew's polling numbers on the issue.
Thankfully, our esteemed Congress didn't embarrass themselves in their ignorance. Oh, wait.
No doubt their cheering on a foreign head of state as he attempts to dictate immigration policy to them is standard procedure. Doubtless, too, they will take his recommendation to reinstate the assault weapons ban under advisement. If we're really, really lucky, maybe he will tell us what to do about Cap and Trade and Iran as well. Dare to dream.
Perhaps someone in this administration will grow a spine and recommend Calderon get control of his own country before attempting to impose his views on this one. Things obviously aren't going well down there if one-third of the country are so desperate to get out that they are willing to run the gauntlet of a desert, coyotes (both animal and human), and border patrols. Let's face it - if Mexico wasn't such a disaster, we wouldn't have such a huge problem on our borders.
The fact that Obama and the democrats supported this pompous ass and his insulting behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
PRIMARY ROUNDUP
Last night was primary night for Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas. The good news? Benedict Arlen Specter has lost his primary. The people of Pennsylvania have spoken, and they are saying "enough!". Was it his switching parties (again) in an obvious attempt to save his career, or was it his numerous gaffes during the campaign that sank him? Most likely a combination of things. Quite frankly, he was the poster boy for term limits for this election cycle. Buh-bye, Arlen!
The democrats are crowing over their victory in Rep. Murtha's district, of course. The voters are sending Democrat Mark Critz to Washington to fill Murtha's seat. While the democrat establishment is over the moon on this victory, it's really a mixed bag if you take a closer look. The thing is, Critz ran against Pelosi, against Obama and against ObamaCare. So, is that really a victory for the democrat machine? Although a democrat won, it was still a vote against the current establishment. No doubt that will be ignored and it will be spun as a victory for the Democrats and Pelosi.
In Kentucky, Rep. Ron Paul's son Rand won his primary. This is a victory for the Tea Party, who heavily backed him against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson. No doubt the democrats will label this as more proof that the "radical fringe" is taking over the Republican party. This from the party that is shedding moderates like Evan Bayh and Bart Stupak without a second thought while forcing the remainder to toe Pelosi's party line.
Arkansas is a wash - Sen. Blanche Lincoln technically won the primary with 45% of the vote to her opponent's 43%, but a 50%+ majority is required, so there will be a runoff.
All in all, it was a bad day for the party in power. Even when they won, it wasn't really a win. Which means the spin will be aggressive and vehement this week.
But, then, what else is new - they have been sounding more and more shrill as the weeks pass. Pretty soon they will reach a pitch that only dogs can hear.
The democrats are crowing over their victory in Rep. Murtha's district, of course. The voters are sending Democrat Mark Critz to Washington to fill Murtha's seat. While the democrat establishment is over the moon on this victory, it's really a mixed bag if you take a closer look. The thing is, Critz ran against Pelosi, against Obama and against ObamaCare. So, is that really a victory for the democrat machine? Although a democrat won, it was still a vote against the current establishment. No doubt that will be ignored and it will be spun as a victory for the Democrats and Pelosi.
In Kentucky, Rep. Ron Paul's son Rand won his primary. This is a victory for the Tea Party, who heavily backed him against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson. No doubt the democrats will label this as more proof that the "radical fringe" is taking over the Republican party. This from the party that is shedding moderates like Evan Bayh and Bart Stupak without a second thought while forcing the remainder to toe Pelosi's party line.
Arkansas is a wash - Sen. Blanche Lincoln technically won the primary with 45% of the vote to her opponent's 43%, but a 50%+ majority is required, so there will be a runoff.
All in all, it was a bad day for the party in power. Even when they won, it wasn't really a win. Which means the spin will be aggressive and vehement this week.
But, then, what else is new - they have been sounding more and more shrill as the weeks pass. Pretty soon they will reach a pitch that only dogs can hear.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
ARIZONA INSANITY Updated
I have been watching the Arizona immigration situation with a great deal of amusement. The histrionics on the left have been both amusing and appalling. Their hypocrisy is showing on federal, state and local levels.
First there is the blatant misrepresentation of the legislation. The left are insisting that this is going to bring on gestapo-style police tactics - guilty of "breathing while undocumented". The author of that little gem is beside herself in righteous indignation, but, as is usually the case with the left, she has her facts wrong and is quoting the wrong bill. This is really par for the course these days - it doesn't matter if the information is correct, as long as it furthers the narrative.
Long story short, the bill is quite specific about police needing just cause to ask for identification. Will there be a few rogue cops who might abuse the new law? Possibly. But didn't that happen prior to passage of the bill? We've all heard stories about inappropriate profiling in the past. The problem is that, as usual, the accusations are flowing fast and furious and with a very broad brush. Every law has the potential to be abused. By the opposition's logic, no new laws should be passed for fear someone will pervert the meaning or step outside the boundaries. One could also infer that the left sees all police as racists who are just itching to lock up as many people as possible, illegal or not. Quite frankly, it's appalling that our own president is forwarding that narrative. But then, it's not like this is the first time he's insinuated that the police are racist and out of control.
The gestapo accusations are quite funny, with their attempted corrolation to having to "show your papers" like in 1930's Germany. Even Obama has played that card with his story about someone being harassed because they forgot their "papers" when they were just taking their kid for an ice cream. I have friends who have emigrated to this country legally, and part of the process is carrying your green card with you at all times. It's a federal law. The Arizona law is merely reinforcing the federal law. You know, the one the feds refuse to enforce, even though Americans are being victimized by illegals in our border towns and sanctuary cities on a nearly daily basis.
The point of the Arizona law was to enable the state enforcement agencies to do what the federal government is supposed to be doing. If the feds were doing their jobs, this law would never have passed.
The law is overwhelmingly popular in Arizona, because the legal residents of the state are desperate for action on a situation that has been out of control for decades but has recently reached a fever pitch. The Governor of the state has seen her approvals ratchet up by 16 points since she signed the bill into law. Sen. John McCain, however, has seen his numbers drop, due to his blatantly political pivot from decades of being an amnesty seeker to suddenly becoming a hard-line immigration enforcer. The electorate is not buying it, Maverick.
The President of Mexico has come out and ordered a boycott of Arizona by all Mexicans. Hopefully that will extend to the hundreds of illegals who cross our borders into the state every day. Michelle Malkin has a great rundown of how the Mexican government treats illegals for a little perspective.
The mayor of many cities in the western US are also boycotting the state. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say state employees should cancel all functions planned for Arizona. Good idea, Gavin - maybe you should be visiting California cities for your little junkets. God knows the state needs the revenue, and the taxpayers would will also see less of their money spent on travel expenses. At this point, I find it insane that during an economic crisis, our politicians are perfectly happy to punish fellow Americans for trying to protect themselves and their property. It is a sad commentary that we are so amenable to inflicting harm on our own countrymen over an epidemic of illegals flooding over our borders.
The boycott idea is really catching on with the lefty bloggers. Unfotunately, they are showing their ignorance on this subject as they have on soooooo many others. Many in the blogisphere are demanding the boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, with one brainiac calling it "the drink of fascists". As usual these doofuses didn't do any research - if they had, they would have realized that AriZona iced tea is brewed on Long Island, New York. Good gracious, these people seriously need to get a clue.
I'm all for immigration in this country. Millions of people emigrate to this country every year. Legally. That is the only requirement most Americans have - come here legally. The left's attempts to smear anyone who opposes illegal immigration as being against any and all emigration to this country is, as usual, painting with a broad brush in order to forward their narrative. It's not too much to ask that people come here legally. All countries have immigration laws, and support of those laws in this country does not make one a racist hater of poor, innocent immigrants.
Which brings us to the most comical part of the coverage of this issue - the obvious bias of the media reports covering the protests in the state capital. Protesters are attacking police, painting swasticas (in refried beans, no less) on buildings, and even calling for burning the city down. And yet these protests are being portrayed as "mostly peaceful" by the press. The same press who were calling the tea parties riotous mobs ready to explode. Yeah, right.
No doubt this issue with remain in the news for a while yet, what with Texas considering similar legislation and three cities in Arizona considering fighting the law.
The Obama administration are beside themselves in fury, initiating an investigation into the legality of the law. Their fury is understandable, though, because the passage of this law highlights the fact that the feds have seriously dropped the ball on the issue, to the detriment of our own citizens. It focuses attention on the fact that there are immigration laws on the books that are simply not being enforced due mostly to political considerations - namely trying to ingratiate themselves to a potential voting block. The realization of how badly they have served the American people might come to be construed as an orchestrated effort to make the situation untenable in order to ensure Americans get behind some sort of amnesty to relieve the pressure. The fact that the new law is as popular as it is on a national level must surely give them pause, but, considering how tone deaf they have been so far, expect them totry to ram through amnesty anyway.
After all, how much damage can creating 12 million new competitors in the job market do? And there surely won't be any sort of flood of new illegals hoping to get amnesty as well. That is just the talk of evil nay-sayers saying nay.
There is a distinct stench of desperation in the air on this one, so it definitely bears watching. The democrats need to pass amnesty before the election because they desperately need the potential votes.
As usual, their narrative trumps reality and the needs of their party trump the needs of the country.
UPDATE: Does this count as a success?
UPDATE II: Kris Kobach, author of the Arizona law in question, has written an op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the law. It's a good read - very informative and debunks the left's talking points with facts. It's hard to believe the NY Times actually printed it - I'm sure they'll be getting a few nasty phone calls and emails today from the Lord and Master. Don't they know this goes against the carefully crafted and nurtured narrative that has been encouraged by the White House?
First there is the blatant misrepresentation of the legislation. The left are insisting that this is going to bring on gestapo-style police tactics - guilty of "breathing while undocumented". The author of that little gem is beside herself in righteous indignation, but, as is usually the case with the left, she has her facts wrong and is quoting the wrong bill. This is really par for the course these days - it doesn't matter if the information is correct, as long as it furthers the narrative.
Long story short, the bill is quite specific about police needing just cause to ask for identification. Will there be a few rogue cops who might abuse the new law? Possibly. But didn't that happen prior to passage of the bill? We've all heard stories about inappropriate profiling in the past. The problem is that, as usual, the accusations are flowing fast and furious and with a very broad brush. Every law has the potential to be abused. By the opposition's logic, no new laws should be passed for fear someone will pervert the meaning or step outside the boundaries. One could also infer that the left sees all police as racists who are just itching to lock up as many people as possible, illegal or not. Quite frankly, it's appalling that our own president is forwarding that narrative. But then, it's not like this is the first time he's insinuated that the police are racist and out of control.
The gestapo accusations are quite funny, with their attempted corrolation to having to "show your papers" like in 1930's Germany. Even Obama has played that card with his story about someone being harassed because they forgot their "papers" when they were just taking their kid for an ice cream. I have friends who have emigrated to this country legally, and part of the process is carrying your green card with you at all times. It's a federal law. The Arizona law is merely reinforcing the federal law. You know, the one the feds refuse to enforce, even though Americans are being victimized by illegals in our border towns and sanctuary cities on a nearly daily basis.
The point of the Arizona law was to enable the state enforcement agencies to do what the federal government is supposed to be doing. If the feds were doing their jobs, this law would never have passed.
The law is overwhelmingly popular in Arizona, because the legal residents of the state are desperate for action on a situation that has been out of control for decades but has recently reached a fever pitch. The Governor of the state has seen her approvals ratchet up by 16 points since she signed the bill into law. Sen. John McCain, however, has seen his numbers drop, due to his blatantly political pivot from decades of being an amnesty seeker to suddenly becoming a hard-line immigration enforcer. The electorate is not buying it, Maverick.
The President of Mexico has come out and ordered a boycott of Arizona by all Mexicans. Hopefully that will extend to the hundreds of illegals who cross our borders into the state every day. Michelle Malkin has a great rundown of how the Mexican government treats illegals for a little perspective.
The mayor of many cities in the western US are also boycotting the state. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say state employees should cancel all functions planned for Arizona. Good idea, Gavin - maybe you should be visiting California cities for your little junkets. God knows the state needs the revenue, and the taxpayers would will also see less of their money spent on travel expenses. At this point, I find it insane that during an economic crisis, our politicians are perfectly happy to punish fellow Americans for trying to protect themselves and their property. It is a sad commentary that we are so amenable to inflicting harm on our own countrymen over an epidemic of illegals flooding over our borders.
The boycott idea is really catching on with the lefty bloggers. Unfotunately, they are showing their ignorance on this subject as they have on soooooo many others. Many in the blogisphere are demanding the boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, with one brainiac calling it "the drink of fascists". As usual these doofuses didn't do any research - if they had, they would have realized that AriZona iced tea is brewed on Long Island, New York. Good gracious, these people seriously need to get a clue.
I'm all for immigration in this country. Millions of people emigrate to this country every year. Legally. That is the only requirement most Americans have - come here legally. The left's attempts to smear anyone who opposes illegal immigration as being against any and all emigration to this country is, as usual, painting with a broad brush in order to forward their narrative. It's not too much to ask that people come here legally. All countries have immigration laws, and support of those laws in this country does not make one a racist hater of poor, innocent immigrants.
Which brings us to the most comical part of the coverage of this issue - the obvious bias of the media reports covering the protests in the state capital. Protesters are attacking police, painting swasticas (in refried beans, no less) on buildings, and even calling for burning the city down. And yet these protests are being portrayed as "mostly peaceful" by the press. The same press who were calling the tea parties riotous mobs ready to explode. Yeah, right.
No doubt this issue with remain in the news for a while yet, what with Texas considering similar legislation and three cities in Arizona considering fighting the law.
The Obama administration are beside themselves in fury, initiating an investigation into the legality of the law. Their fury is understandable, though, because the passage of this law highlights the fact that the feds have seriously dropped the ball on the issue, to the detriment of our own citizens. It focuses attention on the fact that there are immigration laws on the books that are simply not being enforced due mostly to political considerations - namely trying to ingratiate themselves to a potential voting block. The realization of how badly they have served the American people might come to be construed as an orchestrated effort to make the situation untenable in order to ensure Americans get behind some sort of amnesty to relieve the pressure. The fact that the new law is as popular as it is on a national level must surely give them pause, but, considering how tone deaf they have been so far, expect them totry to ram through amnesty anyway.
After all, how much damage can creating 12 million new competitors in the job market do? And there surely won't be any sort of flood of new illegals hoping to get amnesty as well. That is just the talk of evil nay-sayers saying nay.
There is a distinct stench of desperation in the air on this one, so it definitely bears watching. The democrats need to pass amnesty before the election because they desperately need the potential votes.
As usual, their narrative trumps reality and the needs of their party trump the needs of the country.
UPDATE: Does this count as a success?
UPDATE II: Kris Kobach, author of the Arizona law in question, has written an op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the law. It's a good read - very informative and debunks the left's talking points with facts. It's hard to believe the NY Times actually printed it - I'm sure they'll be getting a few nasty phone calls and emails today from the Lord and Master. Don't they know this goes against the carefully crafted and nurtured narrative that has been encouraged by the White House?
Monday, April 5, 2010
HERE WE GO AGAIN Updated
I have mentioned many, many times how much I dislike my congressman, Alan Grayson. I know that I am not alone in this feeling. Every time I see that smug, smarmy face I cringe with embarassment, knowing he "represents" me. I am in the midst of a bout with stomach flu and was not going to post for a few more days, but his latest antics have propelled me from my sickbed in protest.
Mr. Grayson has yet again shown what little regard he has for basic American rights. His first foray into squelching his fellow Americans first amendment rights was when he demanded Atty. General Eric Holder investigate, fine, and imprison a Clermont, FL woman for starting an anti-Grayson website. Now he is demanding the investigation and possible revocation of a Mount Dora urologist's license. Way to go, chump - after all, it's not like we're smack in the middle of a doctor shortage already.
Grayson claims that Dr. Cassell is in violation of his hippocratic oath. This from a man who stomps all over the Constitution, which he made an oath to, on a daily basis. Dr. Cassell is not in violation of his oath, because, contrary to Mr. Grayson's allegations, he has not turned down a single patient due to their political views:
That is his choice, as he is a free man in a free country. A concept that seems alien to Mr. Grayson.
As usual with the left these days, when there is no rational argument for their ridiculous agenda and demands, they turn to the race card for vindication. Grayson is saying that Dr. Cassell's motivation for his anti-Obamacare notice is all about racism. Mr. Grayson's attempt to make this a race issue shows that he has no leg to stand on, and thus must resort to bomb throwing. Even Anderson Cooper wasn't buying what Grayson was selling:
First of all, Grayson is alluding that only blacks voted for Obama, and yet he won with 52% of the vote - the numbers just don't add up, Teacups. He also alludes that blacks only voted for Obama, although there are those who would disagree with that idea. His entire statement is just classic race baiting at it's worst. Now, merely because there is a black presence in an area, any opposition to Grayson and the democrat's agenda can be called racist? That is a mightly dangerous game he is playing at. So, just how many of Mount Dora's residents are black, anyway? Well, having spent a few pleasant Saturdays there, I can assure you, Compton it ain't. To be more specific, the breakdown is this (via ePodunk):
According to WebMD, there are 28 urologists within a 25 mile radius of Mount Dora. If a patient of Dr. Cassell's doesn't approve of his notice, they have 27 other urologists in the area to choose from, and Dr. Cassell is merely making them aware of his views so they are free to choose someone they agree with (if they can).
Back in 2001, I was in the dentist chair and was treated to my dentist's opinion of Clinton and the right's "witch hunt" over the Lewinsky affair. His opinion was that those crazy conservatives went overboard with the impeachment trials just because he was cheating on his wife. My mouth was full of hands and drills, or else I would have reminded him that Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, not because he cheated on his wife. For normal peons like you and me, perjury would be a felony offense punishable with jail time. Clinton was found to be guilty of perjury, not infidelity - a fine line that apparently the left is incapable of understanding. Did I report my dentist for offensive political views? No. I found another dentist. The only thing worse than having your teeth drilled is having them drilled by a Clinton apologist who deifies the man as he drills. It's a bit ironic, really - being drilled by a guy who worships a guy who loves to drill people....
But I digress.
Honestly, I shouldn't even give Grayson a forum, but at some point, you just have to call BS on people. One could argue that just about everything out of Grayson's mouth is BS, but this latest attack was particularly aggregious. Even Anderson "Teabagger" Cooper couldn't get behind it. No doubt Olbermann will be celebrating him as a great American - as if that really matters.
Hopefully more doctors will follow suit and state their displeasure with the government takeover of health care. For those lefties who argue that the AMA endorsed Obamacare, please note that the AMA only represents less than 20% of American doctors. The fact that 46% of doctors polled would consider quitting their practices says quite a lot - perhaps some of them should stand with their brother physician and state their displeasure more firmly. Doctors, for the most part, have been a silent group in the health care "debate".
Dr. Cassell could remain silent no longer, and I, for one, applaud him for his bravery. Let's not forget - not only is he a doctor, he's also a small businessman who needs to protect his own interests and those of his employees. The health care "reform" is going to cripple his business and potentially do far more harm to his patients than a notice on his door might do. The bottom line is, if he offends a few people, so be it, it's his right.
UPDATE: Good gracious, the man is an ass. It seems to me the pressure is getting to him. There are a dozen possible contenders for his job, and people now know that he is a far-left liberal "representing" a conservative district. He is accusing the republicans at the Perkins meeting of "spying" on an Organizing for America meeting. One wonders when he is going to start accusing squirrels of inflitrating the ranks....November just can't come soon enough.
Mr. Grayson has yet again shown what little regard he has for basic American rights. His first foray into squelching his fellow Americans first amendment rights was when he demanded Atty. General Eric Holder investigate, fine, and imprison a Clermont, FL woman for starting an anti-Grayson website. Now he is demanding the investigation and possible revocation of a Mount Dora urologist's license. Way to go, chump - after all, it's not like we're smack in the middle of a doctor shortage already.
Grayson claims that Dr. Cassell is in violation of his hippocratic oath. This from a man who stomps all over the Constitution, which he made an oath to, on a daily basis. Dr. Cassell is not in violation of his oath, because, contrary to Mr. Grayson's allegations, he has not turned down a single patient due to their political views:
"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."
That is his choice, as he is a free man in a free country. A concept that seems alien to Mr. Grayson.
As usual with the left these days, when there is no rational argument for their ridiculous agenda and demands, they turn to the race card for vindication. Grayson is saying that Dr. Cassell's motivation for his anti-Obamacare notice is all about racism. Mr. Grayson's attempt to make this a race issue shows that he has no leg to stand on, and thus must resort to bomb throwing. Even Anderson Cooper wasn't buying what Grayson was selling:
REP. ALAN GRAYSON: ...What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.
COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.
GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.
COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.
First of all, Grayson is alluding that only blacks voted for Obama, and yet he won with 52% of the vote - the numbers just don't add up, Teacups. He also alludes that blacks only voted for Obama, although there are those who would disagree with that idea. His entire statement is just classic race baiting at it's worst. Now, merely because there is a black presence in an area, any opposition to Grayson and the democrat's agenda can be called racist? That is a mightly dangerous game he is playing at. So, just how many of Mount Dora's residents are black, anyway? Well, having spent a few pleasant Saturdays there, I can assure you, Compton it ain't. To be more specific, the breakdown is this (via ePodunk):
White -7,277 77.3%
Black or African American - 1,806 19.2%
American Indian and Alaska native 16 0.2%
Asian - 65 0.7%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander - 5 0.1%
Some other race - 140 1.5%
Two or more races - 109 1.2%
Hispanic or Latino - 628 6.7%
According to WebMD, there are 28 urologists within a 25 mile radius of Mount Dora. If a patient of Dr. Cassell's doesn't approve of his notice, they have 27 other urologists in the area to choose from, and Dr. Cassell is merely making them aware of his views so they are free to choose someone they agree with (if they can).
Back in 2001, I was in the dentist chair and was treated to my dentist's opinion of Clinton and the right's "witch hunt" over the Lewinsky affair. His opinion was that those crazy conservatives went overboard with the impeachment trials just because he was cheating on his wife. My mouth was full of hands and drills, or else I would have reminded him that Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, not because he cheated on his wife. For normal peons like you and me, perjury would be a felony offense punishable with jail time. Clinton was found to be guilty of perjury, not infidelity - a fine line that apparently the left is incapable of understanding. Did I report my dentist for offensive political views? No. I found another dentist. The only thing worse than having your teeth drilled is having them drilled by a Clinton apologist who deifies the man as he drills. It's a bit ironic, really - being drilled by a guy who worships a guy who loves to drill people....
But I digress.
Honestly, I shouldn't even give Grayson a forum, but at some point, you just have to call BS on people. One could argue that just about everything out of Grayson's mouth is BS, but this latest attack was particularly aggregious. Even Anderson "Teabagger" Cooper couldn't get behind it. No doubt Olbermann will be celebrating him as a great American - as if that really matters.
Hopefully more doctors will follow suit and state their displeasure with the government takeover of health care. For those lefties who argue that the AMA endorsed Obamacare, please note that the AMA only represents less than 20% of American doctors. The fact that 46% of doctors polled would consider quitting their practices says quite a lot - perhaps some of them should stand with their brother physician and state their displeasure more firmly. Doctors, for the most part, have been a silent group in the health care "debate".
Dr. Cassell could remain silent no longer, and I, for one, applaud him for his bravery. Let's not forget - not only is he a doctor, he's also a small businessman who needs to protect his own interests and those of his employees. The health care "reform" is going to cripple his business and potentially do far more harm to his patients than a notice on his door might do. The bottom line is, if he offends a few people, so be it, it's his right.
UPDATE: Good gracious, the man is an ass. It seems to me the pressure is getting to him. There are a dozen possible contenders for his job, and people now know that he is a far-left liberal "representing" a conservative district. He is accusing the republicans at the Perkins meeting of "spying" on an Organizing for America meeting. One wonders when he is going to start accusing squirrels of inflitrating the ranks....November just can't come soon enough.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
WHEN IN DOUBT, DEMONIZE
With the ink now dry on the health care bill, scrutiny is finally allowed. After two days of gloating and self-glorification, the democrats are back to playing defense.
The fact that the IRS is the enforcement arm of the bill has finally reached the general consciousness. So too the missed demographics and taxation. Does funding viagra for rapists and pedophiles count as one of those 'goodies' we kept hearing about?
Democrats assured us that there would be so many goodies once the bill was passed that the country would just fall in love with the legislation. So far, the only thing that has kicked in has been taxes.
In an effort to control the debate and demonize the opposition, democrats are playing up threats, and laying them at the feet of tea partyers and republicans in general. Yes, there is a great deal of anger out there over how this bill was passed and what it contains, but at no point have the protesters been violent. In addition, threats and violent acts are being heaped on republicans as well, so democrats aren't the only intended victims. Democrat accusations of slurs being shouted at them on Sunday during the protests have been unsubstantiated, even though there is video and still photography of the event.
Pelosi and the democrat's 'victory march' through the crowds of protesters was an asinine decision, and it's hard to understand their methodology behind it. They must have known that they would be heckled, considering they were marching through a crowd that mainly consisted of opposition. Which begs the question - were they hoping to catch such an incident on tape?
They know the bill is unpopular, and whenever they are faced with opposition, their go-to tactic is demonization. What better way to do that than to go amongst an angry crowd and try to provoke them? Every other attempt to paint the protesters as violent mobs has failed or been exposed, but, as the yearlong fight for the health care bill proves, these people are nothing if not tenacious.
Let's not forget that there are plenty of people on the other side of the aisle who are angry with the bill, too, because of it's lack of a public option and it's alleged 'toothlessness'. There are also those who like to pretend to be opposition and do things to put the opposition in a bad light. A great example of this is the democrat supporter in Colorado who shattered the glass windows of a democrat campaign office after the 2008 election. The democrats were quick to blame the right, but it turns out they were very, very wrong. Needless to say, no apology was issued, and no corrections were made in the press.
What is really bothersome is how quickly these verbal threats are called terrorism, and yet Osama Bin Laden came out with another tape this week calling for the deaths of innocent Americans and nothing is said about it. That is to be expected, though - after all, thousands of innocent people in numerous attacks have been slaughtered by those right wing tea bagger freaks....oh, wait....(BTW - since the left calls tea partyers 'tea baggers', does that mean the tea partyers get to call the left 'douchebaggers'? They are both equally offensive terms...)
Did you ever think that a political party in America would stoop to calling a large portion of the public terrorists and the enemy? During the Bush years, when he was being hung and/or burned in effegy, compared to Hitler and called the AntiChrist, dissent against government was patriotic. Suddenly every word spoken against the current administration's policies are racist and/or dangerous. You might say it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but then you'd probably be accused of being a racist for using the word 'black' in a sentence.
It is pretty obvious that democrats are attempting to smear the tea party movement in a desperate bid to discredit a peaceful, patriotic movement that obviously scares the bejesus out of them. The Tea Party movement is a tough nut to crack for progressives, because it doesn't play into their gameplan. Their tactics involve creating a leader and demonizing him/her, which then enables them to paint all followers of the movement with the same broad brush. They haven't been able to do that with the leaderless Tea party, so they are instead left with vague accusations of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.
Isn't it amazing how Rep. Bart Stupak's allegations of threats to himself and his family when he was considered a no vote were of no consequence, but now that he voted yes and is still receiving threats, suddenly his life is in jeapardy? There is also hardly any mention of Rep. Steven Lynch's (D-MA) threatening phone calls - probably because they originate from unions and health care supporters who are angry that he voted no.
There are a few things being investigated right now, such as a cut gas line at the home of the brother of Congressman Tom Periello and windows broken at Rep. Louise Slaughter's NY offices. The gas line incident in particular is quite serious, and we need to let the authorities get to the bottom of it.
The Tea Parties have been slandered before and been vindicated, so before anyone jumps to any conclusions, let's do what we do in America - grant the accused the presumption of innocence. If the investigations turn up radical right-wingers, then they should be punished, just as if it is radical left-wingers at fault there should be prosecutions.
In the meantime, the democrats in Congress need to shut their traps and allow the investigations to be concluded before they throw any more bombs.
When, exactly, did the demonization of fellow Americans become good politics?
The fact that the IRS is the enforcement arm of the bill has finally reached the general consciousness. So too the missed demographics and taxation. Does funding viagra for rapists and pedophiles count as one of those 'goodies' we kept hearing about?
Democrats assured us that there would be so many goodies once the bill was passed that the country would just fall in love with the legislation. So far, the only thing that has kicked in has been taxes.
In an effort to control the debate and demonize the opposition, democrats are playing up threats, and laying them at the feet of tea partyers and republicans in general. Yes, there is a great deal of anger out there over how this bill was passed and what it contains, but at no point have the protesters been violent. In addition, threats and violent acts are being heaped on republicans as well, so democrats aren't the only intended victims. Democrat accusations of slurs being shouted at them on Sunday during the protests have been unsubstantiated, even though there is video and still photography of the event.
Pelosi and the democrat's 'victory march' through the crowds of protesters was an asinine decision, and it's hard to understand their methodology behind it. They must have known that they would be heckled, considering they were marching through a crowd that mainly consisted of opposition. Which begs the question - were they hoping to catch such an incident on tape?
They know the bill is unpopular, and whenever they are faced with opposition, their go-to tactic is demonization. What better way to do that than to go amongst an angry crowd and try to provoke them? Every other attempt to paint the protesters as violent mobs has failed or been exposed, but, as the yearlong fight for the health care bill proves, these people are nothing if not tenacious.
Let's not forget that there are plenty of people on the other side of the aisle who are angry with the bill, too, because of it's lack of a public option and it's alleged 'toothlessness'. There are also those who like to pretend to be opposition and do things to put the opposition in a bad light. A great example of this is the democrat supporter in Colorado who shattered the glass windows of a democrat campaign office after the 2008 election. The democrats were quick to blame the right, but it turns out they were very, very wrong. Needless to say, no apology was issued, and no corrections were made in the press.
What is really bothersome is how quickly these verbal threats are called terrorism, and yet Osama Bin Laden came out with another tape this week calling for the deaths of innocent Americans and nothing is said about it. That is to be expected, though - after all, thousands of innocent people in numerous attacks have been slaughtered by those right wing tea bagger freaks....oh, wait....(BTW - since the left calls tea partyers 'tea baggers', does that mean the tea partyers get to call the left 'douchebaggers'? They are both equally offensive terms...)
Did you ever think that a political party in America would stoop to calling a large portion of the public terrorists and the enemy? During the Bush years, when he was being hung and/or burned in effegy, compared to Hitler and called the AntiChrist, dissent against government was patriotic. Suddenly every word spoken against the current administration's policies are racist and/or dangerous. You might say it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but then you'd probably be accused of being a racist for using the word 'black' in a sentence.
It is pretty obvious that democrats are attempting to smear the tea party movement in a desperate bid to discredit a peaceful, patriotic movement that obviously scares the bejesus out of them. The Tea Party movement is a tough nut to crack for progressives, because it doesn't play into their gameplan. Their tactics involve creating a leader and demonizing him/her, which then enables them to paint all followers of the movement with the same broad brush. They haven't been able to do that with the leaderless Tea party, so they are instead left with vague accusations of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.
Isn't it amazing how Rep. Bart Stupak's allegations of threats to himself and his family when he was considered a no vote were of no consequence, but now that he voted yes and is still receiving threats, suddenly his life is in jeapardy? There is also hardly any mention of Rep. Steven Lynch's (D-MA) threatening phone calls - probably because they originate from unions and health care supporters who are angry that he voted no.
There are a few things being investigated right now, such as a cut gas line at the home of the brother of Congressman Tom Periello and windows broken at Rep. Louise Slaughter's NY offices. The gas line incident in particular is quite serious, and we need to let the authorities get to the bottom of it.
The Tea Parties have been slandered before and been vindicated, so before anyone jumps to any conclusions, let's do what we do in America - grant the accused the presumption of innocence. If the investigations turn up radical right-wingers, then they should be punished, just as if it is radical left-wingers at fault there should be prosecutions.
In the meantime, the democrats in Congress need to shut their traps and allow the investigations to be concluded before they throw any more bombs.
When, exactly, did the demonization of fellow Americans become good politics?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
THE POLITICS OF DECEPTION
The most frightening part of this legislation isn't a specific part of the bill (although there are some pretty horrifying bits). What is really scary is the length this administration is willing to go to pass it. Not only are they sneaky and underhanded in their closed door crafting of this piece of....work...they are knowingly (he is, after all, a constitutional lawyer) violating the constitution in their brazen attempt to impose their will on the country.
Just how low are they willing to sink?
Well, first there is Bart Stupak's worthless piece of paper. He has been duped and will have sold his vote (and 8 or 9 others) for nothing. Executive orders are secondary to the law of the land, and the new law of the land after the Senate bill passes will be that abortions will receive federal funding. For what it's worth, he can always take the order, tear it into strips and take it with him on his next visit to the congressional washroom. That's about all it's good for.
And then there is the Slaughter Solution. Once it got the nic-name Demon Pass, though, it was done for. You have to hand it to them - those progressives sure do know a poisonous name association when they see one, don't they? It is, after all, their favorite tactic.
There are plenty of other shady deals and misinformation in the creation and attempted sale of this bill of goods - far too many to mention. But it seems that even after all of their other little schemes have been discovered, they are still trying. Former PA republican senator Rick Santorum mentioned a really shady piece of information about the House reconciliation bill during his interview with Greta Van Susteren.
According to Mr. Santorum, the Budget Act of 1974 states that revenues slated for Social Security cannot be used for other programs. The current reconciliation has a provision for "rerouting" SocSec revenues into Medicaid. This would nullify the entire Reconciliation package. This means all of the promises that were made to persuade reluctant House democrats to fall on their swords was nothing but hot air.
Senate Republicans have been attempting to meet with Leader Reid and the Senate Parliamentarian to get some sort of resolution to this situation before the House votes. So far they have been unable to get a meeting.
After listening to Santorum explain the deception, Van Susteren asked, "Could they be that diabolical?"
Let's let Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) answer that one, shall we?
They certainly have learned their Alinsky well, haven't they?
There is always the hope that Stupak and House Dems in general will realise they've been duped, but it's most likely this nightmare is going to pass.
After this, there is still debate in the Senate, but only on the reconciliation package - the main Senate bill will be the law of the land. If the reconciliation is voted down or nullified in some way, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama will sign the Senate bill into law without the "fixes". That might just be even worse. The whole point of Senate republicans making this public is an attempt to have wavering dems rethink their vote. Odds are good that they won't.
It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, but you can hear her warming up in the wings, and she'll probably be singing a dirge.
Just how low are they willing to sink?
Well, first there is Bart Stupak's worthless piece of paper. He has been duped and will have sold his vote (and 8 or 9 others) for nothing. Executive orders are secondary to the law of the land, and the new law of the land after the Senate bill passes will be that abortions will receive federal funding. For what it's worth, he can always take the order, tear it into strips and take it with him on his next visit to the congressional washroom. That's about all it's good for.
And then there is the Slaughter Solution. Once it got the nic-name Demon Pass, though, it was done for. You have to hand it to them - those progressives sure do know a poisonous name association when they see one, don't they? It is, after all, their favorite tactic.
There are plenty of other shady deals and misinformation in the creation and attempted sale of this bill of goods - far too many to mention. But it seems that even after all of their other little schemes have been discovered, they are still trying. Former PA republican senator Rick Santorum mentioned a really shady piece of information about the House reconciliation bill during his interview with Greta Van Susteren.
According to Mr. Santorum, the Budget Act of 1974 states that revenues slated for Social Security cannot be used for other programs. The current reconciliation has a provision for "rerouting" SocSec revenues into Medicaid. This would nullify the entire Reconciliation package. This means all of the promises that were made to persuade reluctant House democrats to fall on their swords was nothing but hot air.
Senate Republicans have been attempting to meet with Leader Reid and the Senate Parliamentarian to get some sort of resolution to this situation before the House votes. So far they have been unable to get a meeting.
After listening to Santorum explain the deception, Van Susteren asked, "Could they be that diabolical?"
Let's let Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) answer that one, shall we?
They certainly have learned their Alinsky well, haven't they?
There is always the hope that Stupak and House Dems in general will realise they've been duped, but it's most likely this nightmare is going to pass.
After this, there is still debate in the Senate, but only on the reconciliation package - the main Senate bill will be the law of the land. If the reconciliation is voted down or nullified in some way, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama will sign the Senate bill into law without the "fixes". That might just be even worse. The whole point of Senate republicans making this public is an attempt to have wavering dems rethink their vote. Odds are good that they won't.
It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, but you can hear her warming up in the wings, and she'll probably be singing a dirge.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
WASHINGTON UPDATE
Between the committee meetings and the Tea Party rally, DC is a hive of activity today. The Tea Party turnout is impressive, as always. Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) has officially invited the tea partyers in to the Capitol to speak to their representatives. It will be interesting to see how the democrats react. They are under a lot of pressure from all quarters today.
As for the House Rules committee, it has been rather chaotic. In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated (via the Washington Examiner):
Sounds like soneone on the democrat side finally realized how unconstitutional the move is. Perhaps the sheer number of lawsuits waiting to be filed against it tipped them off....Word has just come out that the Senate bill will be voted on directly - demon pass is dead.
Now the big question is - does Pelosi have to votes to pass the unpopular Senate bill?
Let's not forget - the reason demon pass was spawned in the first place was because she couldn't whip up the votes for the Senate bill as it was passed.
The whip count varies so wildly that it is hard to keep track of how many votes they have. Dick Morris explained the way he is keeping track - as of last night, 5 no votes had flipped to yes. But, on the other hand, 4 yes votes flipped to no. Which means that, although the dems are touting the five they gained, in reality the net gain is only one. That was the count last night, however, and today has been an incredibly fluid day. It was thought that Bart Stupak had negotiated a deal with Pelosi, but after he cancelled his 11am presser, word leaked out that he is "done with Pelosi" and his vote stands at no.
Let's hope the Tea Partyers have some luck persuading their reps to vote no. I have to admit that there is a little tiny part of me that is hoping that the no votes that flipped to yes did so only to get Pelosi off their backs, and that they are still planning to vote no (well, except Kucinich, who is voting yes because he's been assured that single payer is just a few bills down the road). I know it's silly and unrealistic, but I really am an optimist - I just can't help myself. Besides, I know I'd say almost anything to get Pelosi out of my hair, and I'd just figure that the promise I made to her is just as binding as the promises she and Obama have made to the country. Which is to say, not binding at all.
Uh-oh. The One has decided to descend upon the Hill to persuade his party to do the right thing and save his presidency. It's all about the O, after all. So here's the big question - is this speech by Obama to rally the troops, or is it a convenient way to get them out of their offices while the Tea Party people are roaming the halls? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they would do something like this to keep their caucus from speaking to their constituents - that's why they keep trying to pass this mess before major holiday recesses, after all.
The long and short of it is, tomorrow is going to be a very long, tense day.
As for the House Rules committee, it has been rather chaotic. In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated (via the Washington Examiner):
“We’re not going to ‘deem’ the bill passed. We’re going to pass the Senate bill…I would be against the idea of ‘deeming’ something — we either pass it or we don’t.”
Sounds like soneone on the democrat side finally realized how unconstitutional the move is. Perhaps the sheer number of lawsuits waiting to be filed against it tipped them off....Word has just come out that the Senate bill will be voted on directly - demon pass is dead.
Now the big question is - does Pelosi have to votes to pass the unpopular Senate bill?
Let's not forget - the reason demon pass was spawned in the first place was because she couldn't whip up the votes for the Senate bill as it was passed.
The whip count varies so wildly that it is hard to keep track of how many votes they have. Dick Morris explained the way he is keeping track - as of last night, 5 no votes had flipped to yes. But, on the other hand, 4 yes votes flipped to no. Which means that, although the dems are touting the five they gained, in reality the net gain is only one. That was the count last night, however, and today has been an incredibly fluid day. It was thought that Bart Stupak had negotiated a deal with Pelosi, but after he cancelled his 11am presser, word leaked out that he is "done with Pelosi" and his vote stands at no.
Let's hope the Tea Partyers have some luck persuading their reps to vote no. I have to admit that there is a little tiny part of me that is hoping that the no votes that flipped to yes did so only to get Pelosi off their backs, and that they are still planning to vote no (well, except Kucinich, who is voting yes because he's been assured that single payer is just a few bills down the road). I know it's silly and unrealistic, but I really am an optimist - I just can't help myself. Besides, I know I'd say almost anything to get Pelosi out of my hair, and I'd just figure that the promise I made to her is just as binding as the promises she and Obama have made to the country. Which is to say, not binding at all.
Uh-oh. The One has decided to descend upon the Hill to persuade his party to do the right thing and save his presidency. It's all about the O, after all. So here's the big question - is this speech by Obama to rally the troops, or is it a convenient way to get them out of their offices while the Tea Party people are roaming the halls? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they would do something like this to keep their caucus from speaking to their constituents - that's why they keep trying to pass this mess before major holiday recesses, after all.
The long and short of it is, tomorrow is going to be a very long, tense day.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
THE NIGHTMARE DRAGS ON
Demon pass is officially the rule of the land. I feel a little dirty; do you?
There are numerous challenges lining up in case the swamp thing passes on Sunday. Let's hope some of those constitutional challenges gain traction, because our Dear Leader has indicated that he's so thrilled with how demon pass is working out for him that he's probably going to use it on immigration and other things. If you don't feel dirty yet...you will.
Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal wrote a great op-ed on the future ramifications of Obamacare passing - especially if it passes with demon pass.
This bill isn't just a nightmare, it's a nightmare you just can't wake up from.
There are numerous challenges lining up in case the swamp thing passes on Sunday. Let's hope some of those constitutional challenges gain traction, because our Dear Leader has indicated that he's so thrilled with how demon pass is working out for him that he's probably going to use it on immigration and other things. If you don't feel dirty yet...you will.
Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal wrote a great op-ed on the future ramifications of Obamacare passing - especially if it passes with demon pass.
America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.
This bill isn't just a nightmare, it's a nightmare you just can't wake up from.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
OPERATION HOUSECALL REDUX
It's time to do your part and call your congressperson. It will be difficult, because the phone lines have been notoriously busy, but it's worth it. Let your voice be heard. But remember - be polite, be concise, and be firm.
If you can't spend an hour or two hitting redial, send them an email. You can only email the congressman who directly represents you. You might also want to try the local offices for your representative in your state. Burn up their phone lines, too. Word will get back to them, fear not.
To email your congressman, click here. You will need your zip code and four digit zip code extension in order to email the right representative.
Here is the US Capitol switchboard number - (202) 224-3121. Ask for your representative by name. Be prepared for a busy signal, but don't lose hope - people are getting through.
You can also check out Congress.org's congressional directory. You can enter either your zip code (it might ask you for a street address if you live in a county with split districts) or your reps name. A page will come up with the representative's name and vital stats. There are tabs at the top of the page - the second tab is for contact information. You can connect with his/her congressional website to leave an email, or contact their D.C. office or their local offices via telephone.
Operation Housecall is in effect again. It's time to do our civic duty and remind our representatives that they work for us. At least, for now.....
If you can't spend an hour or two hitting redial, send them an email. You can only email the congressman who directly represents you. You might also want to try the local offices for your representative in your state. Burn up their phone lines, too. Word will get back to them, fear not.
To email your congressman, click here. You will need your zip code and four digit zip code extension in order to email the right representative.
Here is the US Capitol switchboard number - (202) 224-3121. Ask for your representative by name. Be prepared for a busy signal, but don't lose hope - people are getting through.
You can also check out Congress.org's congressional directory. You can enter either your zip code (it might ask you for a street address if you live in a county with split districts) or your reps name. A page will come up with the representative's name and vital stats. There are tabs at the top of the page - the second tab is for contact information. You can connect with his/her congressional website to leave an email, or contact their D.C. office or their local offices via telephone.
Operation Housecall is in effect again. It's time to do our civic duty and remind our representatives that they work for us. At least, for now.....
Monday, March 15, 2010
A SUPREME MESS
The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations, lobbyists and unions could freely donate to political campaign advertising. You would think that the democrats would be thrilled at the prospect, because this frees up their beloved unions to more fully support their campaigns. And out in the open, for a change. Although daylight might be the last thing the union heads want, bloodsuckers that they are.
Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it. Good luck with that. President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech. Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.
Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week. He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):
This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out. It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.
The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms. Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization. A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances.
The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign. The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns.
I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this. It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....
Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it. Good luck with that. President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech. Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.
Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week. He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):
The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”
This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out. It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.
The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms. Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization. A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances.
The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign. The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns.
I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this. It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
BIPARTISAN BIG BROTHER
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have come up with a dilly of a plan to deal with illegal workers. This new plan will require all US workers to have federal ID cards. These cards will be biometric, which means you will have to be fingerprinted in order to get one. In order to get a job, you will be mandated by the federal government to have a card.
Perhaps I'm just becoming more and more paranoid, but I have visions of being asked for my "papers", much like Europe in the 1930's and 40's (via The Wall St. Journal):
On top of that, it seems that the "immigration reform" they are hammering out is more like amnesty. According to Chuck Schumer,
That statement, to me, spells amnesty for the upwards of 12 million illegals currently in the country. Why would there be another wave of illegals after the legislation is signed if not because the previous wave was given amnesty? (What do you think the odds are that someone will try a discrimination challenge to the law for allowing a previous group to come in but not the next? Follow-up question - What do you think the chances are they will win?)
This bill seems to be all about amnesty and tracking US workers. What I haven't heard about it is how it will address border security and illegals who work under the table. When are we going to stem the flood of illegals flowing over our borders? That isn't just about jobs, guys, it's about national security.
No amnesty, no federal ID cards. Back to the drawing board. Secure our borders, and if they came here illegally, they should be unceremoniously sent back. The only amnesty I'd support would be for those who came here legally but overstayed their visas, and even then, they need to be put through the process, not just automatically given citizenship. If someone sneaks into this country illegally, in my opinion they are automatically 'undesirables' and should not be given any breaks.
Tens of millions of people have legally emigrated to this country, my own ancestors included. They went through the rather degrading process at Ellis Island and then went on to become taxpaying, voting, contributing members of society, no worse for the wear. My paternal grandmother refused to speak polish because that was not the language of her country. They left Poland because they wanted to be Americans - and not Polish-Americans, either. Just Americans.
I hear all this talk from the left about fairness - how is it fair that those millions upon millions of people had to jump through hoops and meet the requirements for citizenship, become contributing members of society and integrate into the fabric of this country, and yet others are just given a pass on our laws and procedures, can't be bothered to learn the language (and don't really need to anymore), are catered to by our government and allowed to create their own ethnic enclaves to keep themselves separate and apart?
Am I anti-immigration? Hell no. This country was created by immigrants, my own family included. I'm proud of our Melting Pot society - it made us vibrant and innovative and unique in all the world. But I am very much anti-illegal-immigration. We allow in millions of legal immigrants every year from all over the world and we have numerous programs to help those emigres become productive members of one of the greatest countries the world has ever known. There is no excuse for breaking our laws upon entering our country.
Perhaps there should be some talk about making it easier to emigrate from places like Mexico to the US. But, then again, considering fully one-third of the country would emigrate if they could, perhaps relaxing the requirements might not be such a good idea - that's an awful lot of people to integrate, no matter how you slice it or where they come from.
The point is, this proposed legislation is a mess. Granting amnesty (again) won't solve the problem, and neither will punishing law abiding legal citizens by forcing them to carry around federal documentation of their legal status.
Our government's bipartisan PC efforts to make sure they don't alienate the illegal aliens at the expense of legal citizens is no surprise. That Lindsey Grahamnesty is the power behind it is no surprise, either.
Want to know another not surprising thing? The public outcry against this idiotic plan.
Perhaps I'm just becoming more and more paranoid, but I have visions of being asked for my "papers", much like Europe in the 1930's and 40's (via The Wall St. Journal):
"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
On top of that, it seems that the "immigration reform" they are hammering out is more like amnesty. According to Chuck Schumer,
The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."
That statement, to me, spells amnesty for the upwards of 12 million illegals currently in the country. Why would there be another wave of illegals after the legislation is signed if not because the previous wave was given amnesty? (What do you think the odds are that someone will try a discrimination challenge to the law for allowing a previous group to come in but not the next? Follow-up question - What do you think the chances are they will win?)
This bill seems to be all about amnesty and tracking US workers. What I haven't heard about it is how it will address border security and illegals who work under the table. When are we going to stem the flood of illegals flowing over our borders? That isn't just about jobs, guys, it's about national security.
No amnesty, no federal ID cards. Back to the drawing board. Secure our borders, and if they came here illegally, they should be unceremoniously sent back. The only amnesty I'd support would be for those who came here legally but overstayed their visas, and even then, they need to be put through the process, not just automatically given citizenship. If someone sneaks into this country illegally, in my opinion they are automatically 'undesirables' and should not be given any breaks.
Tens of millions of people have legally emigrated to this country, my own ancestors included. They went through the rather degrading process at Ellis Island and then went on to become taxpaying, voting, contributing members of society, no worse for the wear. My paternal grandmother refused to speak polish because that was not the language of her country. They left Poland because they wanted to be Americans - and not Polish-Americans, either. Just Americans.
I hear all this talk from the left about fairness - how is it fair that those millions upon millions of people had to jump through hoops and meet the requirements for citizenship, become contributing members of society and integrate into the fabric of this country, and yet others are just given a pass on our laws and procedures, can't be bothered to learn the language (and don't really need to anymore), are catered to by our government and allowed to create their own ethnic enclaves to keep themselves separate and apart?
Am I anti-immigration? Hell no. This country was created by immigrants, my own family included. I'm proud of our Melting Pot society - it made us vibrant and innovative and unique in all the world. But I am very much anti-illegal-immigration. We allow in millions of legal immigrants every year from all over the world and we have numerous programs to help those emigres become productive members of one of the greatest countries the world has ever known. There is no excuse for breaking our laws upon entering our country.
Perhaps there should be some talk about making it easier to emigrate from places like Mexico to the US. But, then again, considering fully one-third of the country would emigrate if they could, perhaps relaxing the requirements might not be such a good idea - that's an awful lot of people to integrate, no matter how you slice it or where they come from.
The point is, this proposed legislation is a mess. Granting amnesty (again) won't solve the problem, and neither will punishing law abiding legal citizens by forcing them to carry around federal documentation of their legal status.
Our government's bipartisan PC efforts to make sure they don't alienate the illegal aliens at the expense of legal citizens is no surprise. That Lindsey Grahamnesty is the power behind it is no surprise, either.
Want to know another not surprising thing? The public outcry against this idiotic plan.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
CIRCUS RECAP
Well, the Circus is over. The six hour health care summit stretched to seven hours. The breakdown on speaking was Obama - one hour 53 minutes, Democrats - three hours 53 minutes, Republicans - one hour 50 minutes. Yeah, that's bipartisan. Hot Air's Allahpundit has a great rundown on what he calls the 'Freakshow'.
Obama came off a little snippy and, surprise, surprise, arrogant. Republicans really brought their A game, in my opinion. Not that they got a lot of floor time, but that was to be expected, and they really made the most of the time they were allowed. They were on point talking about the differences between what the dems want and what they want. The democrats relied on a string of sob stories and some wild statements like Harry Reid saying no one has been talking about reconciliation. Really, Harry? Really?
Queen Nancy went at it from another angle - jobs. Yup, you got it - this bill is all about jobs. Four million of them. Apparently 400,000 of them will be created immediately. The thing is, as ridiculous as it may sound, she's probably right. Unfortunately, all of those jobs will be created because of the giant behemoth government bureaucracy they are trying to set up, but, hey, a job is a job, right? Of course, all those doctors retiring and/or quitting will change those numbers a bit, as well as all of the jobs lost when the insurance companies start closing down because they are being priced out of the market or crippled by overbearing regulations and artificial pricing.
The republicans were talking policy and trying to find the points of agreement and explain their opposition to other points, and the democrats were busy spewing one sob story after another, working that liberal guilt to within an inch of their lives, either unwilling or unable to explain their positions. It was a little pathetic, actually.
I understand that there are people out there who are victimized by shady insurance policies; I know that people fall through the cracks. But they are talking about reshaping an entire industry from top to bottom when things like simple regulation to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions would be sufficient. The republicans were trying to point out that lowering costs by implimenting tort reform and interstate commerce, among other things, would enable more people to afford insurance, so more people would be insured - without a government takeover of the health care system.
The problem with that argument, of course, is that, for the democrats, the whole point of 'reform' is government takeover. There is no middle ground on this, because the two sides are diametrically opposed. The democrats are offering socialized medicine in the European model, and the republicans are offering free market solutions. The democrats refused to even discuss tort reform and interstate solutions because they would work (well, and also because they don't want to tick off the trial lawyers - they're a goldmine for campaign contributions).
For all of Harry Reid's denials, reconciliation is on the table. Before the democrats jump on that grenade, however, they should consider that it might possibly be the death knell of their party for a generation or more. Disapproval for their bills have been holding steady at about 56% for the past three months. Over 60% want them to start from scratch. A majority oppose the partisan tactic of reconciliation, including, apparently, one of the creators of the process. They proceed with it at their own risk. But considering how incredibly tone deaf they have been so far, don't be surprised if they pull the trigger anyway.
I have to admit that I was worried that the Republicans would fare poorly today, but they did great. And if Obama's surly expression and attitude are any indication, he knows it - and so do others.
Obama came off a little snippy and, surprise, surprise, arrogant. Republicans really brought their A game, in my opinion. Not that they got a lot of floor time, but that was to be expected, and they really made the most of the time they were allowed. They were on point talking about the differences between what the dems want and what they want. The democrats relied on a string of sob stories and some wild statements like Harry Reid saying no one has been talking about reconciliation. Really, Harry? Really?
Queen Nancy went at it from another angle - jobs. Yup, you got it - this bill is all about jobs. Four million of them. Apparently 400,000 of them will be created immediately. The thing is, as ridiculous as it may sound, she's probably right. Unfortunately, all of those jobs will be created because of the giant behemoth government bureaucracy they are trying to set up, but, hey, a job is a job, right? Of course, all those doctors retiring and/or quitting will change those numbers a bit, as well as all of the jobs lost when the insurance companies start closing down because they are being priced out of the market or crippled by overbearing regulations and artificial pricing.
The republicans were talking policy and trying to find the points of agreement and explain their opposition to other points, and the democrats were busy spewing one sob story after another, working that liberal guilt to within an inch of their lives, either unwilling or unable to explain their positions. It was a little pathetic, actually.
I understand that there are people out there who are victimized by shady insurance policies; I know that people fall through the cracks. But they are talking about reshaping an entire industry from top to bottom when things like simple regulation to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions would be sufficient. The republicans were trying to point out that lowering costs by implimenting tort reform and interstate commerce, among other things, would enable more people to afford insurance, so more people would be insured - without a government takeover of the health care system.
The problem with that argument, of course, is that, for the democrats, the whole point of 'reform' is government takeover. There is no middle ground on this, because the two sides are diametrically opposed. The democrats are offering socialized medicine in the European model, and the republicans are offering free market solutions. The democrats refused to even discuss tort reform and interstate solutions because they would work (well, and also because they don't want to tick off the trial lawyers - they're a goldmine for campaign contributions).
For all of Harry Reid's denials, reconciliation is on the table. Before the democrats jump on that grenade, however, they should consider that it might possibly be the death knell of their party for a generation or more. Disapproval for their bills have been holding steady at about 56% for the past three months. Over 60% want them to start from scratch. A majority oppose the partisan tactic of reconciliation, including, apparently, one of the creators of the process. They proceed with it at their own risk. But considering how incredibly tone deaf they have been so far, don't be surprised if they pull the trigger anyway.
I have to admit that I was worried that the Republicans would fare poorly today, but they did great. And if Obama's surly expression and attitude are any indication, he knows it - and so do others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
