Posts
All Comments
2009 was a year that saw false hope and un-american change, but our nation has overcome greater challenges. Our people have an heritage that goes deeper than the undercurrents that seek to destroy our traditions and our foundations. I believe that 2010 will be a great year in which the American Spirit will make a resurgence throughout the nation and in the hearts of our people.
Have a safe and happy New Year and God Bless America!
There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.- Sam Walton
The free market is made up of every single person on the earth, including you. Any "failure" of the free market is largely and almost exclusively due to one fact: government constantly interferes with and manipulates the markets. When this happens, even to the slightest degree, markets are unable to function properly. It is like trying to have a successful marriage when both sets of in-laws are constantly harassing a young, newly wed couple - problems are sure to abound. (Instead of big brother, the nanny state, or Uncle Sam, the government is often the intrusive mother in-law — the mother of all mother-in-laws!)
And so when you restrict the freedom of the market place it ceases to be a free market, and this is precisely at the heart of our current economic woes. Sam Walton was correct in his observation — the customer is boss. We don't need government regulations, oversight, and other anti-capitalist intrusions, which attempt to tell people what to do and not to do regarding their business.
The markets work because every day millions of people make free choices on how they wish to use their resources, and businesses and entrepreneurs constantly try to create the best goods and services to meet the needs of those same people. This drives progress, innovation, invention, and prosperity for everyone — largely in proportion to how much they participate in the process. Every dollar we spend is a vote for or against how a business runs and operates, and across every person in the nation and the world we create an economy that works better than ANYTHING anyone or any group — no matter how supposedly intelligent — could ever wish to create.
The Business and Media Institute just published its list of the Media's Top 2009 Economic Myths:
10. CBS, NY Times Support Ecuadorian Shakedown of U.S. oil company
9. Media Fail to Scrutinize Obama’s Job Claims
8. Government Stimulus is the Answer to Our Economic Problems
7. No Tax Increases for the Middle Class
6. The Recession was Over … by July.
5. Cash for Clunkers was a ‘Success’
4. Reagan vs. Obama on Jobs: Same Rate, Different Story
3. Health Care Reform will be ‘Deficit Neutral’
2. Tea Parties aren’t made up of grassroots protestors; they’re just ‘Astroturf.’
1. ClimateGate
I find it quite disturbing that so many people buy into these stories, and I find it even more disturbing that our national media runs with them. Obviously when a story fits their ideology they go with it — no matter how false the accusation or how untrue the claims may be.
The battle over language is an important one, and the manipulation of public perception is a trick that the Statist has perfected. Unfortunately, opposition to Statism frequently falls short in the linguistic counter offensive.
One man in recent history was successful at manning this resistance. President Reagan was so effective that he drove his opposition crazy by beating them at their own game. He won many battles in the war of words, not by resorting to their tactics of flattery and inaccurate words, but instead he spoke with plainness to the people — he was not a man of many words, just a man of honest words.
This conflict over language and ideas is captured extremely well in the following passage:
"Reagan dissected the Statist’s language and recast the morality of the message. Americans are not at war with each other over money and class. And when Americans keep the fruits of their labor, it is a good thing. This is both seminal and fundamental. The Statist’s vocabulary provides the Conservative with opportunities to highlight the Statist’s duplicity and the bankruptcy of his ideas by stripping the rhetorical veneer from his message and contrasting it with the wisdom of the Conservative’s principles. The battle over language, like the battle over ideas, is one that conservatives should relish." [Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, pg. 143]
The constant battle over public opinion is rather dirty most of the time, but Reagan stayed above the fray by painting accurate pictures of his opponents and critics, thus exposing their lies for all to see. The left hated Reagan because of this, and while he was around they could not get away with their distortions and deceptions. Reagan was a great spokesman for conservatism because he was honest with the people. (Don't bring up national security issues as being dishonest either, every president has to make certain decisions while keeping large amounts of information from the public view.)
This term is almost always misused, but I think its proper place is this: not ignoring facts, not denying truth, not dismissing real history and good traditions, accepting the role of faith in discourse, trying to see the argument from both sides, and abstaining from the misuse of language for the purposes of sensationalism and reckless reporting.
Conservatism is the only political philosophy that can truthfully outline its fundamental principles and values for all to see with nothing to hide. The ideas and policies embraced by conservatives will withstand the harshest scrutiny because they work and they have been proven by all of human history. Some people are not intellectually honest in how they portray and defend conservatism because they are either ignorant, uneducated, or inarticulate; but also even the best spokesman will fall prey to the allurement of being slightly dishonest in his language because those who fight against him are relentless in their use of intellectual dishonesty.
The ends do not justify the means; however, and most often reason will not condone fighting fire with fire. But in this world the defenders of truth are imperfect and sometimes feel justified in garnering support and winning debates with inaccurate language. Both sides of the political spectrum and everyone in between are all guilty of verbal sabotage to one degree or another. No matter who is right and who is wrong, the use and misuse of language is at the heart of most debates. Having a working knowledge and exercising a great deal of discernment are necessary to arrive at the truth of most issues.
We must proceed with caution so as not to be deceived by those people and ideas that are not what they seem to be, but we cannot dismiss a position merely because someone is trying to be clever with their words. So instead we must be careful what we believe and who we listen to. When someone comes along who talks constantly and seems to say just the right thing, as if his words were parsed, screened, and scripted, who rarely speaks an unprepared word, be extremely wary, for such is the way of a deceiver.
Now public speaking is a skill that most of us can learn, and I am not saying we should oppose having refined orators in elected office. What I am saying is that true leaders, real statesman, stand on principle and know how to speak from the heart — when they do it you know it. Thus you can measure the character of the man by what is in his heart.
Others who are false prophets and charismatic demagogues will play the tune of the pied piper and sing the sweet song of the siren, and before people know it they're marching off the cliff to their own destruction. If someone is blatantly lying we can generally tell, but the meticulous twisting and distorting of truth with carefully chosen words can oft times go unnoticed even by very astute individuals. Most brutal dictators had a way of charming or hypnotizing the masses, and many malevolent individuals who seek to fundamentally change our society and remake it in their own image will employ the same tactics.
The war of words is over how we use and perceive language, over who claims ownership to what terms, and over how the fundamental institutions and traditions of our society are described and defined. We cannot allow people to call welfare a "tax cut" and sound business practices "unfair." The war has many fronts and is waged all around us. Listen carefully and pay close attention to what is going on around you, and above all make sure you are fighting the war of the words on the right side. If all those who believe in liberty and believe in freedom and believe in the rights of the individual over the state will stand up and pay attention, then the America that God and the Founders created will prosper and be protected.
CBO estimated the effective rates for four federal taxes--individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes--under current law for each year from 2001 through 2014.The rates reflect the three tax cuts of 2001-2003, which are set to expire by 2011 starting next year.
After the recent exposure of the communications between several climate propagandists, many people are starting to realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes for sometime now. Many of us have been shouting from the roof tops what a fraud this whole scandal is, but now we will see the religious fervor that motivates the so called science of climate change. Environmentalists are going to become overt apologetics for there false position and become extremely defensive. They will seek to divert and cover up what has been exposed as they try to maintain the sanctity of the religion of science and the creed of environmentalism.
Gerald Warner wrote an article in the Telegraph this week called "Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws" in which he said the following:
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.
Very cold in deed. At least the secularist is learning the vernacular of those who believe in God. They will soon be expressing the need for hope, faith, belief, sacrifice, and other terms that have been incompatible with the scientific method; but as they have found a golden calf to worship and an alter to kneel at they have clearly abandoned reason and rational thought — the longstanding cornerstones of science. Hopefully this will serve the purpose of opening the minds of those beholden to reason to the acceptance of those things which may only be understood through the spirit — something those with faith in God have understood since the days of Adam (even longer-standing). I won't hold my breath, but I wouldn't be exhaling carbon if I did...
The link above is to an application that asks you to take a stand on what you think and believe. Where I Stand covers all sorts of questions and issues affecting our country (as well as silly questions that don't matter). Our freedom gives us the right to have an opinion, speak out, and debate with others freely and openly. Where I Stand is a great platform to do this.
Finally, there is the question of civil unions. Some politicians and others say that they are against same‐sex marriage but in favor of legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, with all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, only falling under a different rubric. If law and policy are at least to do no harm to marriage, it is critical that they avoid treating non‐marital conduct and relationships as if they were marital.
There are clear moral lines—and not merely semantic ones—between what is marital and what is not, and the law should respect them. If they are blurred or erased, the public understanding of the meaning of marriage will erode. Some of the benefits traditionally associated with marriage may legitimately be made more widely available in an effort to meet the needs of people who are financially interdependent with a person or persons to whom they are not married. Private contracts between such people should be sufficient to accomplish all or most of what they consider desirable. If, however, a jurisdiction moves in the direction of creating a formalized system of domestic partnerships, it is morally crucial that the privileges, immunities, and other benefits and responsibilities contained in the package offered to non‐married partners not be predicated on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between them.
Benefits should be made available to, for example, a grandparent and adult grandchild who are living together and caring for each other. The needs that domestic‐partnership schemes seek to address have nothing to do with whether the partners share a bed and what they do in it. The law should simply take no cognizance of the question of a sexual relationship. It should not, that is, treat a non‐marital sexual relationship as a public good.
I cannot add much to his articulate explanation of this idea. I would only reaffirm and restate that any particular right of relationship that is to be conferred upon two individuals should be done without regard to the type of relationship it is, and the rights of marriage should be reserved for the marriage relationship — defined as one man and one woman who enter into that blessed arrangement. Marriage should be held up in our society as a standard for all to see. Families are the fundamental unit of society and a nation of strong families requires a nation of strong marriages.
Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are the types of politicians that give politicians a bad name.
The majority of people in the Congress who vote for left wing, ultra liberal, unconstitutional legislation are believers in the cause they support. When you hear them speak, they talk about those beliefs — sure they lie and spin and create all sorts of propaganda, but they are what they are. The people who vote them into office expect them to behave the way they do and everyone is happy.
These four Senators tell the people of Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Arkansas that they are of a different breed. They tell them they will be fiscally responsible and conservative. Then they go to Washington and march lock step with the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patrick Leahy.
The truth of the matter is that Saturday night anyone of these four could have voted no on the motion to proceed with debate, and in effect kill the Senate healthcare bill. But instead they all said: I do not like the bill, but we should debate it and see if we can change it into something that we can support, but we will not stand in the way and block the debate and amendment process.
The dirty little secret that many people do not understand is that in the Senate a bill requires 60 votes to move forward at this stage and 41 votes to stop it. Once the final bill is voted on it can pass with 50 votes and requires 51 votes to defeat it (the VP casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie). So all four of these Senators bought themselves time so that they can then vote against the final bill and still allow it to pass and then go back to their constituents and say that they voted against it.
This is a display of weasely politics at its best. The other disgraceful thing is that some of these people threatened to vote against the motion to proceed last week, and then after accepting political bribes they announced they would vote yes and thus keep the bill alive. Landrieu of Arkansas was bribed with 300 million dollars of Medicaid funding for her state. And thus 300 million people are sold out for a buck a piece.
Hence, they are a disgrace!
 |
Call These Senators & Tell Them to Vote No on Reid’s Health Care Bill (Remember Be Polite)
202-224-5824
202-224-6551
202-224-4843
202-224-5623
Roll Call said this: "The White House is quietly urging Senate Democrats to come up with a list of potential candidates for the federal bench, hoping to flood the pipeline with circuit and district court nominees and ratchet up the pressure on Republicans to confirm them." — Obama Looks to Move Judges
President Ronald Reagan gave this speech at the Brandenburg Gate by the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, during the commemoration of the 750th anniversary of Berlin. Reagan told Secretary Gorbachev with unmistakable emphasis that if he truly sought peace that he would tear down the Wall.
The entire speech can be found here: The History Place. The following is the part quoted in the video above:
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.
Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table.
But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.
Reagan put the Soviets on the defensive and made them choose between liberty and tyranny. He did not back down, he did not try to appease, he did not seek popularity amongst the nay sayers; but in all of his words and actions he was bold, assertive, and confident in standing for liberty and promoting peace through strength!
The motto of the state of New Hampshire is taking on a whole new meaning. All the people who champion government intervention in health care and medicine are playing the fool to the false notion that centralized authority is the best way to manage a large and complex industry. Once government seizes power over health care, which they already have to a large degree (and this just so happens to be the main source of most of the ills found in our current health care system), then people will no longer be as free as they were before; and worse yet — many will die who would not have died under our current system.
Saying that people will die under government run health care is a statement that many may consider to be extreme or fear based, but I believe that it is the logical opposite of saying that our current private health care system saves lives. Once that system is destroyed then it can no longer save lives and the people whose lives would have been saved will die. But the most fair way to look at this is issue is to ask whose lives will be saved and whose lives will be lost under each system.
In all fairness we will lose lives and save lives under both systems, but the difference will be whose lives are saved and lost and how many. We can only make educated guesses as to what would or could happen if we change our system to what is being proposed in Congress right now, but we can look at some indicators to try and estimate outcomes, but historically outcomes are ALWAYS estimated incorrectly by politicians. This leaves us in a position of great uncertainty, but oddly enough we happen to have quite a few other arguments against socialized medicine...
Arguing against national health care is better done on the grounds that:
This list was made off the top of my head and is most likely very incomplete, but the fact of the matter is the idea national health care can be defeated on any one of these points — what can be said about the strength of our position when we incorporate ALL of them!
The hour has come where we need to stand up and be counted. Every possible political tool we have in our free society must be employed to stop this monstrosity from becoming law. The following is a list of things you can do to get your message through:
We are seeing democracy in action and we all need to exercise our rights in this matter. This nation was instituted upon the principles of liberty and freedom, the free exercise of thought and opinion, the belief that all men are created equal and should be able to live their lives how they choose. No man or woman has the right to force others in matters of how they should live their lives and use their freedom. Government health-care will take away the power of the people in a large measure and the state will dictate and mandate by force of fine and imprisonment many aspects of your life. This is something we cannot allow to happen.
To those who disagree and have not given the matter enough thought or who have personal incentive to go along with this plan that will greatly harm the rest of the nation: You are doing the wrong thing! Reconsider your position or you will live to regret it. Or maybe one day when you are old and happen to be one of the people who would have lived under our current system, you won't live to regret it!
"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. It is possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it speaks to an assertive independence historically found in American political philosophy and partly because of its contrast to the milder sentiments found in other state mottos.
The phrase comes from a toast written by General John Stark on July 31, 1809. Poor health forced Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington and to send his toast by letter: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
I really, really like Rick Santorum—and he wrote a great article on September 10th called The Elephant in the Room: Who will collect the dots?
I will not comment in depth on the main point of his article, which was that the Intelligence Agencies are being transformed into their pre-9/11 forms again. We must honestly deal with the question of whether or not we are a target to evil in the world, and whether or not terrorism is something that is still a threat to our nation. I would hope the answer is "no," but I know with certainty that the answer to both questions is a frighteningly resounding "yes." It is not of light consequence that these realities exist and we must not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they do not.
The substance of the article discusses the dire situation facing the Intelligence Community because of an activist overly politicized Justice Department. Some of those people are out to score political points, but worse yet they are out for blood.
The methods that are being used to exact political revenge are what I would like to bring up. I find it utterly sickening that serial killers, rapists, and child predators walk the streets of this country because of "prosecutorial misconduct," and equally reprehensible are the efforts to empower our terrorist enemies by bestowing upon them due process rights. To demonstrate how backward and utterly disgusting the system is becoming, we have good honest men and women, many of whom are the real heroes in this country, who are being dragged through the mud with the intention of finding misconduct in their own defense with which they may then be charged and convicted.
So, lets get this straight: the bad guys go free because the lawyers mess up...and the good guys go to jail because the lawyers are successful in crossing them in their words...is that about right?
"Last month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder countermanded the decision of his Justice Department's career prosecutors and decided to investigate CIA agents who had interrogated unlawful enemy combatants. Holder's special prosecutor will undoubtedly prosecute and secure convictions. Like most political prosecutions, however, the charges will grow out of the agents' conduct during the special prosecutor's investigation, not the agents' conduct in questioning the terrorists. (See the Scooter Libby prosecution.)"
This is outright shameful, and it is going to get people killed, not to mention many wonderful people will have their names and their lives ruined in the process. These actions are undermining the security of our nation, which is the foremost role of the federal government under the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution. The use of these dirty legal games that only seek to injure and harm are just like the "show trials" that went on for decades in Stalinist Russia.
Stalin and his henchmen found that this was a wonderfully useful trick to get rid of potential political opponents.
This was very effective, but extremely diabolical. And the practice is totally antithetical to liberty and should never be used in the United States of America. Unfortunately, we see it all the time, Congressional Hearings, Special Prosecutors, and so forth; all done by conspiring men and women, all done with the same malicious intent, and all happening right in our own front yard in broad daylight.
The only point left to ponder is the ethics of stealing a page out of your opponents playbook and getting down in the mud; fighting fire with fire, so to speak. I would say only as a last resort because the ends do not justify the means, in spite of what the current Congress and Administration believe. Sometimes it behooves a man to taste his own medicine, but I would hope that in this great nation we could do away with such things without having to all lower ourselves to such disrespectful ways.
I have had it with all of the accusations of racism that have been so flippantly thrown around over the last few weeks (and months for that matter). No individual gets a pass because of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, height, color, family pedigree, academic achievements, or anything else of the sort. If someone, be it the president or anyone else, supports a position or an idea then we have every right to disagree or agree based on the substance of said position or idea. The notion that anyone is racist because they disagree with someone of a different race is absolutely absurd and exposes the shallowness and insecurity of the accuser.
This is a purely political attack and I resent every single bit of it. To be frankly honest it is both immature and disrespectful to say that people are racist when they criticize someone with whom they have an honest disagreement. And the truth of the matter is the disagreements we are having in our country right now are of great import and consequence, and to result to playing the race card when the moment you begin to lose political momentum is a shameful act of desperation.
The true measure and character of a man or woman is on full display during times of difficulty and tumult, and we are justified in using that measure to form our opinions on how fit someone is to lead us or not. I believe there are many who currently hold positions of power who are weak and unfit to lead, and this latest attempt to demonize those who oppose them only serves to affirm this belief.
I felt like saying thank you to all the men and women who serve in the armed forces in one capacity or another. I wish to express thanks from the bottom of my heart to all those who have served and those who are no longer with us because they themselves paid the ultimate price in securing our liberty. Your service and your sacrifice does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. One day, probably not in this life, we the American people and also the other nations of the world will fully understand what you have done for us; and at that time I hope the honors and gratitude bestowed upon you all will be great and glorious, because only God Himself knows the true price you have paid for your countrymen.
Because of you, I am able to work and live my life, serve God and love my family, all without fear of oppression or tyranny. Many tens of millions of people throughout the world and throughout history cannot say the same thing. I only wish I could properly express the reverence and respect I feel for you and what you do. So once again, Thank You!
Obviously a lot of people.
So, first things first—this from The Hill:
The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink.
The move will highlight the nation’s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year’s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion.
President Obama is the ideological leader of those who have power in our government right now; that is something that could never be said of George W. Bush, he may have been the "standard bearer" of the Republican party and he was definitely a leader as commander in chief, but unlike Obama, he did not share the same political ideology as his party's base.
So with that in mind, who are we to point the finger at for this continued financial nightmare. A simple and basic understanding of our government tells us that the Congress creates the spending bills that become the laws dictating the expenditures of our Federal Government.
Again from The Hill:
Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.
“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.
The problem is the democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress for the last two and a half years. The spending bills that have pushed the federal debt limit higher have come from them. Sure Bush signed them into law, but all too soon forgotten are the great debates that took place over spending on the war, which was indeed the top priority for President Bush. All the rhetoric about "shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren" was political posturing for the 2008 election, and it was done with malice toward the choice to liberate the people's of Iraq and Afghanistan.
When out of control domestic spending is the principle cause of the debt like it is now, democrats are all in favor, and republicans are eerily silent. So the pattern that we see is this: military and defense spending - bad, domestic social programs and welfare - good. Republican President desires debt ceiling to be raised because Congress won't balance a budget - President is bad. Democrat President calling for increase of the debt ceiling - President is good.
Because of the ongoing struggle for power the actions of politicians must always be second guessed, especially when we have the most disingenuous group of Marxist ideologues this country has ever seen working around the clock to destroy the fundamental traditions and principles of our great nation.
The debt limit should not be raised! We need to rally together and demand that our representatives and senators start putting together proposals that will address the massive deficits and out of control spending at the federal level(and state for that matter, but one battle at a time). We can have little hope of this current Congress and Administration doing anything of the sort, but fortunately the mid-term election is only 14 long months away. Plenty of time to expose these ignorant power-hungry elites for what they really are. And yes Mr. President, we are watching you, very closely. Go soak up all the visits to Martha's Vinyard you can because 52.9% will be much harder to come by in three years!
The Founders of our great nation had the correct understanding of the principle of natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence they declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Governments are not instituted to confer or to take away rights, but to secure them. The Founders stated that the Creator endows all men with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When government begins to assert itself and claims that it has the power or intention to confer or deny any kind of right, we must push back, for this is not the role of government. Our federal government is massively out of control, and has far overextended itself from the original intents of our forefathers. Tyranny always begins to gain strength through its feigned intention of creating equality of outcomes and results. We must not fall prey to this seductive and false promise.
As a nation we have many problems that require solutions, but let us not surrender our liberty to those who seek to exercise power and authority; and let us promote liberty by making our voices heard, stemming the expansion of governmental power, and advocating a limited government that only exercises the authority granted to it under our Constitution.
Front page of Yahoo.com today: Pfizer to pay record $2.3B penalty over promotions
The AP reports that, "Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug maker, will pay a record $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty over unlawful prescription drug promotions." Apparently we have laws that tell drug manufacturers how they can promote the sale of their goods, and the Justice Department feels that they have the authority to tax the ____ out of a company if they do not comply with such laws. I of course support the rule of law, but initially this looks like a blatant abuse of power, $2.3 billion!? I see this more as the government abusing 'we the people,' than as a large company abusing the government system.
From my reading of the article the violation was that Pfizer wined and dined some doctors on numerous occasions. Not dissimilar to what lobbyists have done with lawmakers who write the laws telling drug companies what they cannot do to persuade those they wish to influence. The article states:
To promote the drugs, authorities said Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks.
"They were entertained with golf, massages, and other activities," said Mike Loucks, the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.
It's a good thing that this behavior isn't outlawed in people's personal lives because last I checked this is the primary method most people use to convince someone to marry them. But here is the part that is most disconcerting:
Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli[sic] said the settlement illustrates ways the department "can help the American public at a time when budgets are tight and health care costs are rising."
This Perrelli is weaselly at best, but I see his track record as very dangerous. This comment about the DOJ helping the American public with this settlement is sick! The administration that he represents and supports is doing all of the wrong things to address the said tight budgets and rising health care costs, but not to digress, this whole notion of bleeding out large companies to help the situation is outrageous.
The other big issue is FDA approval and the subsequent promotion of drug usage. For example, aspirin is approved by the FDA to treat certain conditions, but companies cannot label or promote it as being able to do any of the other 1,001 things that mothers and grandmothers across the country use it for. The ridiculous part of this law is that once a physical condition is labeled as a disease by the Department of HHS and the FDA, no remedy for such "disease" can be marketed or promoted as a treatment or cure without going through all of the phase testing required for drugs.
All of this is done under the premise of the government protecting the consumer, but do consumers need protection from big brother? This is a much debated question and it will continue to be debated, but for now it is beside the point. This whole story is being sold today as "Big Pharma breaks law, health care fraud against Medicaid and Medicare." All the nudnick politicians and similar hacks are coming out saying what a wonderful thing this is and how terrible Pfizer is, again from the article:
New York, for example, will receive $66 million, according to the state's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo.
"Pfizer ripped off New Yorkers and taxpayers across the country to pad its bottom line," Cuomo said. "Pfizer's corrupt practices went so far as sending physicians on exotic junkets as well as wining and dining health care professionals to persuade them to prescribe the company's drugs for patients in taxpayer-funded programs."
These are the very same taxpayer-funded programs that his buddies and liberal comrades have been promoting and creating for 75 years. They complain about all the waste, fraud, and abuse in their beloved entitlement programs, but their solution is to create bigger more comprehensive programs—socialized medicine being the mother of all.
I would venture to say that Pfizer and companies like it have done 100 times more to actually improve the quality of life for more people than Medicaid and Medicare have done or ever will do. Entitlement programs have never invented one new drug, never created one new procedure, and they have never nursed one patient back to health; instead they impede and limit the free flow of goods and services between health care providers and health care recipients by driving up costs, creating dislocation, and reducing quality. I would rather put the entire health care system in the hands of Pfizer (I of course would not want that) than in the hands of the federal government. So, read between the lines of this story, which actually broke back in January, and do not be mislead by the propaganda and the spinning that so many in the media and the government will try to pull off.
Yes, this is the battle cry of the environmentalist movement. Now they are starting to make headway in many leftist run countries, and among them not-so-Great (anymore) Britain.
This from the Telegraph: Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s. I predict that unless they change course the estimates will be low.
I am all for innovation and new technology, but it just will not come to pass at the insistence and prodding of government. Almost nothing that any environmentalist ever suggests is ever beneficial to society, and these groups should largely be ignored by rational thinking human beings (liberals and eukaryotic organisms are obviously exempted but for different reasons).
Make sure that you keep your priorities in order when you espouse a cause. Too many people get sucked into something that has some meaning and value on the outside, only to become irrational and sometimes fanatical as they slide down the slippery slope. Stand on principle and never compromise, then when you support something you can be assured that you are supporting something of merit and value.
Speaking on his radio show October 3, 2008, Mark Levin said the following: "You know what happens if we elect a Marxist to the Presidency, and the third most liberal senator to the Vice Presidency, and Nancy Pelosi still running the House by even a bigger margin of liberals, and Harry Reid still running the Senate by even a much bigger margin of liberals there, do you know what happens? The foundations will start to crack!"
And here we are 11 months later, and these irresponsible people having been in power a little over seven months, and its true. The policies and laws, the regulations and rules, are all starting to weigh down on the country and the forces that have done this are not letting up in any way. This is a very crucial time in our nation's history, as with all times, but if Reagan was right—and I think he was—that freedom is always one generation away from extinction, then right now is the fight of a generation.
Continued: "Now you tell me if we don't live in a soft tyranny today. One-third of your fellow Americans do not pay any federal income taxes, ONE-THIRD! Two-thirds are carrying the entire burden"—and to remind you of what that burden is see U.S. National Debt Clock— "And of that two-thirds, the top 50 percent, which is about $60,000 and up, is paying 97 percent of the tax burden for everybody else! Now he wants to keep redistributing wealth, just how much more does he want to redistribute? He says, Obama, that 95 percent of Americans will get a tax break. How can that possibly be when only two-thirds pay? Well, you know how it is, it's called the massive welfare state. What he's saying is the people who don't currently pay income taxes, he's going to take money, more money from the people who do pay income taxes and give it to the people who don't pay income taxes. Where I come from that's called WELFARE! So what he wants to do is massively increase the welfare state, massively redistribute wealth, and a lot of people who aren't millionaires are saying, "Oh I'm all for it, good, gimme, gimme!" You're gonna be punished!"
Well I couldn't have said it better myself, and it is all happening right in front of our faces, as we speak. Our way of life cannot take much more of this. As was said, "the foundations are starting to crack."
I ran across this site today while watching the rebroadcast of a news segment from Wednesday night. US Debt Clock.org—This is a frightening disclosure of where we have placed ourselves as a nation over the last 75 years.
It is totally and utterly irresponsible of anyone who has been given a mandate to honorable hold elected office to discuss doing anything that would worsen our financial problem as opposed to addressing ways to correct it.
Yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush talked about The Purposeful Destruction of American Capitalism. He mentions several things in the article that should jump out at every remotely intelligent, freedom loving American (I may have just disqualified millions of people):
So the underlying impetus behind this systematic destruction of our financial system and the government's financial integrity is to allow the state a justification for total wealth redistribution.
I think it is safe to say that most Americans are in favor of tax reform. Very few people could make a sound argument in favor of the status quo; however, there are some who want to follow the Marxist model and implement "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.",which we already have to a certain degree, but these people would take it to an extreme. The article that Rush was quoting is entitled Obama and 'Redistributive Change' by Victor Davis Hanson, and I strongly encourage you to read this article and pass it along to all those you know.
I too am in favor of tax reform, but I hope that we can accomplish it on the merits of the proposal and the logic behind its benefits and outcomes. The tax reform we need must give power back to the people, it must free the engines of progress and innovation, and it must raise enough capital so that we can get ourselves out of this death sentence we have and are creating for our nation. The best proposal I have seen so far is the Fair Tax.
This is a very important time in our nation's history, with as many disastrous policies and other efforts to undermine America and her mission, right now we are seeing a great onslaught of malignant force.
"There are reasons for optimism, but you are right: It is a dangerous time. It's the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country."Rush Limbaugh 08/26/09
I told a relative of mine the other day that I believe the easiest way to destroy a free country is to hyper-inflate its currency. But that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to skin the proverbial cat. Here are some other ways to destroy a nation deeply rooted in liberty, such as America:
This is the battle plan of those who hate liberty and freedom. We must be vigilant and active in protecting all of these fronts everywhere. Again we must all be anxiously engaged in the good cause of protecting our liberty because as President Reagan said repeatedly "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"
Wow, as disappointing as it is to have a president who is so maniacal, I cannot say I am disappointed in President Obama because as they say if you aren't expecting anything good then there's no disappointment when you get nothing. Frankly, I expected everything we have seen out of this man so far, and this flat out disingenuous debate on healthcare is just the latest and most obvious example.
In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They ProtectNever before has a journalist penetrated the wall of secrecy that surrounds the U.S. Secret Service, that elite corps of agents who pledge to take a bullet to protect the president and his family. After conducting exclusive interviews with more than one hundred current and former Secret Service agents, bestselling author and award-winning reporter Ronald Kessler reveals their secrets for the first time.
About the Author
Ronald Kessler is the New York Times bestselling author of The Terrorist Watch, The Bureau, Inside the White House, and The CIA at War. A former reporter for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, he has won sixteen journalism awards. Kessler lives in Potomac, Maryland, with his wife, Pamela.
This interview is very interesting for a couple reasons. First, Mr. Kessler describes, in more detail than what one might have known, how JFK and LBJ (why the initials) specifically did not have the highest of moral character—and assuredly we can throw Mr. Clinton in with them too. Mr. Carter was not as genuine as many have thought him to be, his private self being much different than his public self. Then on the other hand with Reagan and the Bushes we have Presidential men, the best example of statesmanship we've had in a generation.
Contrast the values, the positions, the ideas, the principles, and the character of these two groups of men. Dispense with party affiliations for a moment and observe how beliefs and character are so closely related.
The second observation is how people in high office interact with others. Note for example how the charismatic faces were just fronts with the first group and genuine with the second. Some people enjoy being around others and some dislike it. What does it say about the soul of a man if he truly finds pleasure in the company of others regardless of their station when he himself has a position of immense power and prominence?
Now, in conclusion, what type of men promote liberty and individual worth? Men who themselves have good character and values. Men who lack virtue will look upon others with contempt and see fit that they do not have the freedoms which would allow the vice ridden man, like himself, to ruin his life. A real man who has developed character, like President Reagan did, will look on man kind with respect and love. He will seek to promote liberty and encourage his fellow man to become great and use that liberty to achieve great things. Let this be a lesson in how to measure the stature of a man who seeks to lead.
"We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”--The Shining City Upon A Hill, on January 25, 1974 to First Conservative PAC
We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."
“The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people - and that means you and me. Well, I believe in you, and I believe that if we work together then one day we will say, ‘We fought the good fight. We finished the race We kept the faith.’ And to our children and our children's children we can say, ‘We did all that could be done in the brief time that was given to us here on earth.’ ”--Remarks at the Annual Members Banquet of the National Rifle Association in Phoenix, Arizona on May 6, 1983
Many areas of our government are spiraling out of control, but one of the most troubling is the political pandering taking place over at the Justice Department. If our Justice Department keeps up this kind of negligent activity we will start to see an outbreak of criminal activity because those who have been charged with enforcing the rule of law are acting as lawlessly as the criminals they should be dealing with.
The trite phrase, "elections have consequences," carries with it some powerful truths and some frightening realities. We must do all that we can to prevent this administration from further damaging our society. The 2012 elections will be important to begin to undo the damage being done in the executive branch of our government.
But more imminent and pressing are the congressional elections of 2010. We must take the power away from those who have been abusing it so blatantly for many months now. We will have to work very hard to undue the damage that this democrat majority and president have and will inflict on America, so start getting the word out to more and more people about the tremendous need to get involved and to start paying more attention to what's going on.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
The dispute centers on a chart (view PDF) created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
At first glance, Brady’s chart resembles a board game: a colorful collection of shapes and images with a web of lines connecting them.
But a closer look at the image reveals a complicated menagerie of government offices and programs that Republicans say will be created if the leading Democratic health care plan becomes law.
In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.
In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.
For example, Democrats argue that the chart depicts a “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” that is “simply a recipient of IRS funds, with no outflow. ... This is false.”
The chart’s illustration of low-income subsidies is also “misleading and false,” Democrats argue.
Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.
The dispute over Brady’s chart is being reviewed by the franking commission, which must approve any mail before it can be sent. No decision had been made on the matter by press time.
Brady adamantly denied that the chart was misleading and said Democrats are simply threatened by the content of the graphic.
“I think their review was laughable,” Brady said. “It’s ... downright false in most of the cases. The chart depicts their health care plan as their committees developed it.”
“The chart reveals how their health care bureaucracy works, and people are frightened by it,” he added. “So this is their effort to try and discredit” the chart.
Republican Members have made 20 requests to mail a version of the chart to their constituents and have been told that the requests are being delayed while the commission reviews allegations that the chart is misleading.
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
“He strongly believes that the franking commission does not have the authority to deny Member communications based on partisan differences of pending legislation,” said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Lungren.
The franking commission is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans.
Republicans quickly embraced Brady’s chart, and over the past week about 50 Members have posted it on their Congressional Web sites or used it in a floor speech. It has also been posted on the home page of the Republican National Committee.
