Sunday liberty died in a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Late last week it was reported that Rep. Peter DeFazio had switched to a no vote on the health care reform bill but in the end all four Demarxists voted in favor of the bill and in doing so, put a stake through the heart of liberty. Before the ink was dry on Tuesday, when Dear leader signed the bill into law, a number of State AG's filed suit in federal court saying that the bill was unconstitutional. Most say that it is because of the federal mandate that all individuals must carry an "acceptable amount" of health insurance regardless of whether they wanted it or not.
If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.
On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.
I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.
The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
My email to Rep. Kurt Schrader
With the looming vote for the government to take over our health insurance, I have called in to my non-representing representative. Because the people in the office claim that Rep. Schrader is still undecided on how to vote and won't make a decision until he reads the entire bill, I felt it necessary to send him an email so he has a permanent record as to how I feel about the issue. I have called and emailed Schrader before on a variety of issues and have yet to receive any kind of response from him. I will now wait and see if he decides to respond to my message.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Definitions
There may be some questions about the definition of certain words or phrases that may be used in my ranting and raving. In order to get my point across, I feel it is necessary to define them. Because I may interject new words or phrases, I will from time to time, come back to this posting and add to it instead of creating a new posting. The definitions posted aren't arranged alphabetically or chronologically but the list shouldn't be all that long and should be easy enough get through. When I add new words and phrases after the initial posting, I will separate them by putting a date above them to let you know when they were added.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Nanny State Strikes Again
A state assemblyman from Brooklyn, NY introduced a bill in Albany that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. The wording of the A 10129 states, "No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises."
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Shrink the Government or Manage it?
The question that has been posed by Mike Church on a number of occasions is whether Republicans want to dismantle the federal leviathan or simply manage it? Today (2-25) I was listening to Sean Hannity. A caller made a comment that was made at the health care summit by Sen. Coburn dealing with creating an agency of "patients" that check up on doctors. The caller then said that all this will do is make doctors look over their shoulders. Sean asked if the doctors are doing what they're supposed to be doing, why should they be worried? This is the type of mind set that we have to change. Sean and others like him, both famous and not so famous, miss the point of shrinking the government not expanding it.
Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.
I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?
Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.
Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.
Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.
I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?
Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.
Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Glenn Beck the Decepti-Con
Debra Medina is one of three candidates running for governor of Texas on the Republican ticket. Her opponents are Rick Perry, who is the current governor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, U.S. Senator. Last week Glenn Beck had Medina on his radio program. This would usually be a great way to reach out to a larger audience and gain support both locally and nationally. Apparently Mr. Beck didn't approve of Ms. Medina's idea of a limited federal government and States' rights. This is apparent in the questions she was asked and the way Mr. Beck and his employees laughed and mocked her after they got off the phone with her but continuing to broadcast. This was wholly unprofessional and disrespectful. For this, I am labeling Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
Answer to Mike Church's Question
Mike Church today (2-3) asked what we were going to do about shrinking leviathan? What are we going to do to shrink the size of government? Apparently a number of people have complained via email that they have relatives that have government jobs. “What do you want to do; let them lose their jobs? Are you going to feed them when their job is eliminated?” To those people I say, “Let them get a real job. If they are worth a damn, they can get a real job in the private sector. If they can’t get a real job, then maybe the reason they have a government job is because they can’t make it in the real world. “What about (fill in the blank), they’re a teacher in the public school system. What do you want to do, fire them too? Who will teach the kids?” Have you seen the state of the public schools? Are you telling me that with all the money that is sunk into them that they are doing a good job in teaching the kids? Why is it that more parents choose to send their children to private schools or are home schooling them? The public schools are a sinkhole. Why is it that many teachers are against merit pay? Once a teacher gets tenure, it is almost impossible for them to get fired. And then you wonder why the schools are failing. “Me thinks they doth protest too much.” Why is it that government bureaucrats continually say that we aren’t funding education enough and just one more tax increase will fix the problem? I have been hearing that same old song and dance since I was in school back in the mid-80’s. If it is really only one more tax increase, why is it that when the taxes do go up, you still need more money? How many non-teachers do the schools employ? How many non-school buildings are “owned” by the school districts? If the school superintendent is in charge of a failing school system and you get rid of them; why would you hire a replacement that was fired for the same reason?
My answer to the King Dude’s question of the day, start abolishing government agencies and start firing government employees. Those who have the ability to make something of themselves will find a new, productive job. Those who can’t make it in the real world will either have to learn to be productive or they will have to rely on the charity or others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)