• Question of the Day: Are we seeing a significant, widening divide between the Blue Dog Democrats and the rest of the Democrat Party? #tcot #
• @ryantrevett Wow, thanks! Nice to meet you too! in reply to ryantrevett #
• QotD: Does Pelosi's proposal to raise surtax lines to $500k and $1million put her at odds with the party's $250k definition of rich? #tcot #
• Question of the Day: Is the recent further drop in Obama's popularity a sign of ever-expanding "Obama regret?" #tcot #
• @sanozan I think you may be right. in reply to sanozan #
• @e3jeremey No warranty either. =/ in reply to e3jeremey #
• Question of the Day: Should Obama have fought so hard to keep funding for the F-22 out of the most recent military spending bill? #tcot #
• Question of the Day: How can spending trillions of dollars (on health care or otherwise) be the "only" road to economic recovery? #tcot #
• @LadyLibrty Isnt this true for every politician though? All create these absolutes. They have a different name for the opposition each time. in reply to LadyLibrty #
• TV is on behind me. Obama is preaching to Ohio. Same old same old. #
• @LadyLibrty Yeah I just don't dig his "This is the end of everything unless we do what I say!!!!" attitude. in reply to LadyLibrty #
• Question of the Day: Are Hillary Clinton and Obama working together well? #tcot #
• Question of the Day: Is racism going to continue to play a part in Obama's administration? #
• @Rick_Dmitruk If only we had "people lobbyists." Oh wait, those USED to be called Congressmen. in reply to Rick_Dmitruk #
• @Imjetta You think there's outright animosity between them? in reply to Imjetta #
• @StructureD So the question that follows, then, is: will it stop, and if so, how? in reply to StructureD #
• @Imjetta Yeah I wonder if he'd have lost a lot of political capital if he had just left her out. in reply to Imjetta #
• @Imjetta Do you think he wants to incite it or just exploit it? in reply to Imjetta #
• @LadyLibrty So how long do you think that tactic will be effective? in reply to LadyLibrty #
• @StructureD I'm disappointed because if there was one thing I was hoping from him it was racial unity. I honestly had hopes for that. in reply to StructureD #
• @StructureD Yeah I don't think Presidents need to be making comments on local events like that. in reply to StructureD #

As I watched Obama stumble, dissemble, and ramble through his prime time “State Media apparatchik public event” er, press conference, a powerful though came to mind. OK, two thoughts: The 1st, of course, was the mental image of the Brezhnev era military parades featuring the Soviet Elite atop the Kremlin walls waving to the “adoring” masses. Ah yes, the power of a prescient double entendre!

The 2nd:  Obama’s poll numbers are falling faster than Jimmy Carter’s. The Democrats, the ones who still eat meat, are in open rebellion, rightly fearing an impending 1994 redux. This guy is a liar, like Bill Clinton was. Obama, though, unlike Mr. Lewinsky, is an ideologue. Obama has neither the political skills nor the inclinations of W.C. Clinton to sway with the prevailing political winds and but survival above ideology. He has, along with the most left-wing congress since 1917, shoved his progressive, fascistic agenda against the collective will of the American people, who have seen this scam before.

His presidency, to quote a real US president, is like “an Evil Empire, whose last pages are even now being written.”

The Obama presidency is over. God bless America.

What we’re seeing is the people speaking through their politicians. Obama and many Democrats assumed that the financial crisis would predispose most Americans to favor a larger and much more expensive government than we ever have had before.

A plausible hope for change, perhaps, but polling shows it hasn’t happened. The prospect of huge federal deficits extending out as far as the eye can see is not appealing to most voters. The prospect of having the health care sector of the economy designed by the people who gave us the $787 billion stimulus package is even less appetizing.

But we should not cynically underrate the importance of a strong argument, which may prevail despite the transcendent aura of a new president. Some of the Blue Dogs’ concerns may be parochial (rural health care), but they make a strong case, buttressed by ( CBO’s) expert testimony, that Congress should not rush to transform the health care sector at huge cost and with little cost-cutting effect. And the Polis letter signers’ concern about the negative macroeconomic effects of higher taxation of high earners can find support in the writings of Democratic, as well as Republican, economists.

What will this Thursday bring? We’ll wait and see what comes from the buzzing on Capitol Hill. In the meantime, as I read the text of the Blue Dogs’ and Polis’ letters, I suddenly heard the voice of the late Jack Kemp proclaiming at the 1984 Republican National Convention that if you subsidize something, you get more of it and that if you tax something, you get less of it.
Full article in new window

• Obama’s Sinking Approval Ratings Are Even Worse Than They Look (usnews.com)
• Obama may have to wait for health care passage (ctv.ca)
• David Brooks: “Liberal Suicide March.” (althouse.blogspot.com)

The arguments for why we should or should not have “free” health care are being thrown back and forth in a rather cavalier way. I put “free” in quotes because nothing is ever free. There is always some economy involved in getting what you want, even if it’s not a cash economy. In the case of “free” health care, there just so happens to be a huge cash economy associated with it, but there are also the economies of time and quality. In other words you will have to sacrifice a lot of cash, time, and quality to get “free” health care. As a general rule, people will never understand that. These are the same type of people that get duped by the “free orange Macbook” offers that pop up all over the Internet.

This post is not about “free” health care though, at least not directly. I want to try to put into words what I understand about the Bill of Rights and how it applies to the issues we face today. A lot of people mistake the Bill of Rights for an enumeration of our rights as citizens of this country. These people are fools. I apologize if I just called you a fool, and maybe that’s a strong word, but this aspect of our Constitution has traditionally been taught completely inaccurately in public schools, leaving most people none the wiser. One of the cavalier arguments against “free” health care is that there is no right to health care in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, no one has that right, right? Wrong. This is a horribly inaccurate argument, and I facepalm whenever I hear people and pundits use this to defend their stance against health care reform of any kind.

The Bill of Rights is actually an enumeration of the limitations of government power over our unlimited natural rights. Without getting into too much historical detail, this was a bit of a sore spot between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the founding of our country. Alexander Hamilton argued against any Bill of Rights because the Constitution alone gave the people all rights under the sun, and he feared listing any specific rights could be misconstrued as a limitation on other rights. Worse yet, large government might use a Bill of Rights to find more exceptions to the Constitution with which they could restrict the rights of the people even further. (Does this sound familiar?) Meanwhile, Anti-Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson feared that listing no rights would be an open invitation for large government to quickly take away all rights and perhaps turn itself into a monarchy all over again. I’ll just point out that both of these factions feared large government rule. Our Bill of Rights as we know it today is essentially a compromise between the two groups trying to prevent just that. How? Take a look at the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Are you familiar with that Amendment? I know it’s not the First or Second, but seriously, there were only ten total in the Bill of Rights; you should know them all.  The Ninth Amendment illustrates the founding fathers’ belief in personal rights before government and their anticipation that people would easily misconstrue the Bill of Rights as a limitation on personal rights (in the hopes that you would not do this.) This idea is further illustrated in the wording of other Amendments. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” The Fourth says, “the right of the people to be secure…shall not be violated.” The list goes on. These are strongly worded to restrict the power of government over the people. Ultimately, we ended up with a Bill of Rights, but it was the first Bill of Rights in history to be the exact opposite of what all prior bills of rights of various nations had been, which were essentially lists of rights handed down by the ruling class to its subjects.

What does this mean for us today? First of all, it means you now know the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and can use it correctly in your political arguments. (Please, spread the word. It’s so embarrassing that we the people don’t know the true origins of our country and the meanings of its founding documents.) More importantly, it means we have all of those rights you have ever said were not rights because they were not in the Bill of Rights. That being said, what we must not forget are the responsibilities that come with every right. You cannot have a right without a responsibility. Here, I propose my Bill of Rights And Responsibilities for modern reference. This is a living document that can be amended as new issues arise. It should be easy enough to do for those of us who understand what personal responsibility means.

• The Right to Own a Home: You cannot be denied the purchase of a home based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, your home cannot be seized at the whim of any person or governing body.
  The Responsibility of Owning a Home: You have to pay for your home in order to own it. No other person, group, or government can be held responsible for the home you own. Educate yourself on what it means to have a home mortgage. If you are not fiscally ready to own a home, rent one instead.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You will lose your home. No one will save you. Buying another home later in life may be extremely difficult. Alternatively, the government may bail you out, and everyone will hate you.

• The Right to Health Care: You cannot be denied health care based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, you have the right to not have your health put in jeopardy against your will.
  The Responsibility of Health Care: Take care of yourself. Health care begins with you. Do not run to the hospital every time you need a band-aid (or a drug fix.) Get off the couch. Eat healthy. Plan ahead. Put money aside for any chronic or unexpected conditions. Be smarter with your money. This is your health we are talking about. Why buy the 60-inch flat panel HDTV when you know you could be saving that money for a rainy day? Put your health first. You are the victim of the choices you make. People have been taking care of their families for centuries. Don’t feel entitled. Don’t be spoiled. Be an adult.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You overcrowd the system. You become a leech on society. The government declares a national crisis and makes you and everyone else a ward of the state. Your rights to health care are now dictated and restricted by the government. You have no options. Your right to health care as it should have been is now gone.

• The Right to Higher Education: You cannot be denied higher education based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, you cannot be forcibly removed from school without just cause.
  The Responsibility of Higher Education: You have to study hard, work hard, and save a lot. If you can’t save more, study more. Scholarships come to those who earn them. Universities are competitive. If you cannot compete, you will not win.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You won’t get into college, or you will flunk out of college.

• The Right to Dance Naked to “Billie Jean” In Your Living Room: No one can stop you. You’re a dance machine.
  The Responsibility of Dancing Naked to “Billie Jean” In Your Living Room: Close the blinds. Don’t let the music disturb the neighbors.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: At best, your neighbors just label you a freak, never speak to you again, and post their video of you on YouTube. At worst, you get fined or locked up for any number of reasonably policed infractions.

You can see where I am going with this. My point is simple: every right has a responsibility, and failure to be responsible for your rights leads to consequence. There are no guarantees. There are no free rides. Granted, that last example was a little silly, but it just goes to show how silly it is to try to limit people’s natural rights. Some things are just nobody else’s business. We don’t need to outright ban those things.

Responsible people should be rewarded for their model behavior. Everyone has to live the life they have chosen for themselves. You will find people are much more willing to help you in your time of need if they are left to their own means of taking care of themselves than when you call upon the government to force them to take care of you. When you ask the government to solve your problems, you invite it to chip away at the unlimited natural rights you once had under the Constitution. My other point is that for those of you who claim to be “Constitutionalists” and continue to deny people rights because they are not in the Bill of Rights, it is time to wise up. We can solve the problems we face without government intervention, but we will never get there if we continue to argue inadequately. For those of you who outright reject the Constitution, well, I’m not sure what to say except that it is in fact our main governing document, and if you continue to pass legislation that contradicts it, we will have to hold you accountable for our nation’s spiraling demise.

• Question of the Day: What did you do this past week to make a difference? #
• @gls_energy I tend to agree. It's different when we are not in a recession. There's a responsibility there. But now is just bad timing. in reply to gls_energy #
• Question of the Day: If you were President, how would you do things differently? #
• @hochmann Awesome. Gonna post it on the facebook page. in reply to hochmann #
• RT @hochmann @obamunism_us volunteered for upcoming Light The Night cancer fundraiser, and started raising donations http://is.gd/1w52A #
• @gls_energy I wonder if anyone could get elected on a platform of "veto every bill." I'd probably vote for you, but the fatcats wouldn't. =) in reply to gls_energy #
• Question of the Day: What is Sarah Palin doing? #
• @gls_energy Could very well be the case. I think the media is GIVING her an identity crisis that she doesn't really have. in reply to gls_energy #
• Question of the Day: Is a family making $250k/year "rich?" #
• @broast That seems to be a consensus. in reply to broast #
• @gls_energy It's a strange "magic number" to use to draw the line. Doesn't seem rich to me at all. in reply to gls_energy #
• @choiberg I think it's still kinda low to be "rich" even before they start paying for health care. in reply to choiberg #
• Question of the Day: Will Congress have a health care bill that includes a public option ready for Obama's August "deadline?" #
• @scrowder Just saw your Canadian health care exposé. Would you be willing to wear a free Obamunism shirt in a video? http://su.pr/3eRgGG #
• RT @scrowder "Obamunism, eh?" http://tinyurl.com/lbevcg #TCOT #
• Question of the Day: Do you consider a tax rate higher than 50% justified? #tcot #
• @conchtees @staceysuka @e3jeremey @juddybuddy36 @funnytshirts @hochmann @MaNishmah @broast @gls_energy @choiberg #followfriday #
• @MaNishmah I'm afraid this is where the U.S. is headed. in reply to MaNishmah #
• @MaNishmah Supposedly the "rich," yes, will have an effective income tax rate of over 50% in some states. in reply to MaNishmah #
• @hochmann Thanks back! in reply to hochmann #
• Question of the Day: Why do people keep referring to it as "free" health care? #tcot #

• Question of the Day: Will Obama’s health care plan abandon the elderly in their last year of life? #
• Question of the Day: Will the U.S. and Russia be able to work together to curb ballistic missile proliferation? #
• #QotD Why are we being told to wait to see the effects of the stimulus package if Obama already thinks a second one may be necessary? #
• #QotD Would the pant-suit lady have been less of a spender? #
• Question of the Day: Does Russia take Obama seriously? #
• Question of the Day: What qualifications would the ultimate candidate for President in 2012 possess? #
• @e3jeremey Some similar response on the facebook page. in reply to e3jeremey #
• Question of the Day: Can we afford to be giving Obama’s proposed $20 billion to Africa right now? #

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, “Pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land.”
Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, “Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a camel, this is the promised land.”
Now Obama is going to steal your shovel, kick your asses, raise the price of camels, and mortgage the promised land.

Ain’t life grand.

No one–except a handful of lunatics I suppose, disagrees with the idea that the Nazi’s were wicked and Hitler, as their leader, was a crazy madman; it follows that those who believed in him were likewise crazy, delusional and needed to be stopped.

However, this in from Algore today:

London times

Now, I know he didn’t “specifically” say that global warming skeptics(GWS)were Nazi’s, I understand that. What he did say, is in my view even scarier.
He’s telling young people it’s up to them to save civilization from those of us who are skeptics; we are evil for our disagreement; that disagreement with HIM is a bad thing because the debate is over.

Now I’m all for young people learning that it’s their role to be the next leaders of our country and of society in general, but to liken GWS to Nazi’s and the “fight” for the environment as equal to WWII is the craziest thing I have heard this week–I’m not holding my breath, it is only Tuesday after all; to say, as he and others have done, that the debate is over is complete piffle!

If the science were IN, there would be no growth, and every DAY something new and wondrous comes out of the scientific community: new species are discovered, new cures are found, new genes are isolated. There is always something new, therefore, always room for improvement and growth, for new understanding to take the place of outmoded ideas.

Again, I digress.

Does Algore KNOW what went on in WWII? I know a couple of people who could enlighten him if he needs an education on this matter.

It is my humble opinion that we could turn the tables and say that global warming alarmists (GWA)could be likened to the Nazi’s themselves.
They want to shut down our way of life, and force behaviors on us that are not of our own choosing. They want to make us drive insanely tiny, unsafe vehicles, thereby decreasing the “surplus population” (as Scrooge said) through highway deaths; make us use poisonous light bulbs in our homes that cast a horrid light and are a danger to us and our families; they want to grow rich on cap and trade ventures that are nothing more than government mandated scams destined to take money out of our pockets and in doing so, food off of our tables.

Please don’t assume the debate is over therefore we must bow down to Algore and his ilk.
Nothing is further from the truth.
A large portion of the scientific community does not buy into “the consensus” that the Earth Muffins want us to buy into; that means THERE IS NO CONSENSUS!

This is a religion to these people, the New Age of earth worship; Algore is their god and their prophet, their objective is to force their opinions on the rest of us.
This is one of the things our Founding Father’s fought and died for: the right to choose your own path, your own ideals.

Be prepared; Be watchful; Be informed.

These are the “Four Legs” upon which the pedestal of our liberties have stood these nearly 250 years. The rule of law is a concept dating all the way back to the edicts of the Roman Emperors, but enshrined in our modern world by English common law, informed and enlightened by natural law, and codified starting with the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the ultimate expression and synthesis of these four principles. It has indeed allowed for the sustenance of the greatest, most powerful, and freest nation in the history of this earth.

But what would happen if none cared any longer?

A good friend of mine opined today that Obama’s health care proposals, among others, are fascist, and blatantly unconstitutional. Understanding fascism is complicated, but a lack understanding the Constitution and our system of checks and balances is intellectual laziness, which I postulate is why we find ourselves in the situation of peril that exists today.

Constitution? Who the hell even cares that it exists anymore – certainly NOT when democrats are in power… Hell I wouldn’t be surprised to see it “suspended” – after all, Woodrow Wilson did so! FDR did so! Fascistic is exactly right: Jonah Goldberg (in “Liberal Fascism“) explains, and I have added here that:

Actually, the notion that fascism/Nazism and communism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. – Richard Pipes: “ Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism”. Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to recreate tribal (or feudal!) impulses. Communists champion class, Nazi’s race, Fascists the nation. All these ideologies, totalitarian impulses in the extreme, attract the same types of people!

AND they are all of the same in another respect – they are all forms of IDENTITY politics. Get the rich, affirmative action, “save the planet” – all pseudonyms for fascistic, socialistic, Nazi, communist, totalitarian, Orwellian control.

We are in deep trouble, and can only hope our founders were wiser even than we thought until now…T

The operational meaning of the word “fascism” for most liberals who invoke it is usually “shut up.” It’s meant to bludgeon conservatives into silence. But many on the left also genuinely believe that there is something fascistic in the DNA of contemporary conservatism, as if Republican Party conventions would get their rightful treatment only if they were worshipfully filmed by Leni Riefenstahl.

In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century. How we think of the ideological spectrum — socialism to the left, fascism to the right — should be forever changed.

Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.

Full article in new window

• Question of the Day: How many more hours per week would you like to work to help pay for illegal immigrants’ health care? #
• Buy your misprinted Obamunism t-shirts from $7: http://bit.ly/1aoxQA #
• Question of the Day: Would you join the Libertarian party? #
• @StructureD Nor am I, which is why I stay independent. All of the parties have some major flaws. But I like MORE of the Libertarian stance. in reply to StructureD #
• @gls_energy Awesome. So why isn’t that movement more prominent? in reply to gls_energy #
• @broast Depends. If we must have parties, I think switching simply to erode the main 2 wouldn’t be bad. in reply to broast #
• @wmofskye So why is there not more momentum there? in reply to wmofskye #
• @StructureD That’s what is so weird about the LP: how does everyone agree on a platform that is essentially “you don’t have to agree.” =) in reply to StructureD #
• @ALIPAC Have you gotten yours yet? I’m holding my breath. in reply to ALIPAC #
• Get $1 off all Obamunism and OBC shirts during the live town hall using discount code TOWNHALL at http://conchtees.com #
• @gls_energy It’s arguable that Libertarians are the closest thing to the founding fathers. I’m sure they were called crazy by the Brits too. in reply to gls_energy #
• @gls_energy Seems every election more people vote LP though. Eventually, it won’t be a waste, and they’ll have to be recognized. in reply to gls_energy #
• Question of the Day: Will you participate in the government’s sale of its GM holdings to the public in 2010? #
• @MaNishmah Yeah I don’t think there would be much value there. #
• Question of the Day: What’s keeping Obama from supporting the Fair Tax? #
• #followfriday @msproductions @ksjordan @StructureD @broast @wmofskye @gls_energy @ALIPAC @funnytshirts @conchtees #
• Question of the Day: Do you remember how we declared independence from an oppressive regime on this day 233 years ago? #
• @staceysuka Indeed. in reply to staceysuka #
• Happy 4th of July! Hope everyone had a great day! #