THE SAPIENT SPARROW: conservatism for commoners

"What has always made the State a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."–Holderlin

THE DNC & THEIR “CONTRACT ON AMERICA”

photo by Christian Science Monitor, 2010

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine unveiled an anti (?)-Republican advertisement campaign that seeks to tie Republicans to the Tea Party.  The advertisement, ostensibly, seeks to turn the American people away from Republicans (and toward Democrats?), because of their close ties with Tea Party ideas.   The ad lists the ten planks of the Tea Party “Contract From America” and then states that these are virtually identical to what Republicans want to do.  Hmmm—has it been lost on them that a majority of Americans are sympathetic to the Tea Party, if not outright members?  As I looked over what the DNC is calling “Contract On America”, I could only pray that the Republican Party is actually embracing these goals.  I think they are winning ones.

One caveat as you read the DNC “Contract” below—the annotation that follows each item is wildly inaccurate and madly spun from a Lefist point of view.  For example, the outcomes that the DNC states from repealing Obamacare, privatizing Social Security or phasing out Medicare are overstated at best.  Visit Representative Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” site for the true plan that the conservative Congressional Republicans are developing.

Oh, and by the way, in case you are concerned about #10, consider this:

Repealing the 17th Amendment would mean that another amendment would need to be passed in order to “undo” it.  The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
When an amendment is proposed in Congress, 2/3 majority in each house of Congress must pass it before the amendment is sent on to the States.  Then ¾ of the States (or their legislatures) need to approve it,  no matter where the amendment originated.  Not an easy process.  Huge majorities would need to agree in order for this to happen.  Like it or not, I think we are stuck with popular election of Senators.

Read the DNC advertisement below.  What do you think?  I think that the DNC advertisement has a lot for Republicans to like.  With enemies like the DNC, who needs friends?

THE CONTRACT ON AMERICA
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)

Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether

Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America’s seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.

3. End Medicare as it presently exists

Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors — ending Medicare’s guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors — and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.

4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil

At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform

Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.

7. Abolish the Department of Education

Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.

8. Abolish the Department of Energy

End America’s investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act — which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe — and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator.

Filed under: big government, , , , , , , ,

STOP! WAIT! COME BACK!

“The truth is, it took nearly a decade of failed economic policies to create this mess, and it will take years to fully repair the damage. But I am confident that we are finally headed in the right direction. We are moving forward. ; And what we can’t afford right now is to go back to the same ideas that created this mess in the first place.”—President Barak Obama, July 23, 2010 in weekly address

In a four page article in National Review Online, William Voegeli systematically argues that Liberalism is dangerous.

If politics is defined as “the way power is organized”, American power was conceived to be essentially organized by individual citizens in a free market who then delegated a portion of that power to duly elected representatives.  Voegeli makes the point that power thus organized is responsive to the electorate, because their positions depend on the support of the electorate.

As the result of Liberalism, we now have a system in which Congressional power is largely (mis)placed in a myriad of Government Agencies: SSA, EPA, US Department of Ed., etc., etc. who can regulate extra-legally.  These unelected bureaucrats are not responsive to citizens, because citizens have no power to fire them.  Thus, the individual is diminished and devalued by huge, faceless Government machinery.

America originated with the idea of an individual with natural, God-given, inalienable rights. This idea preceded laws, regulations and policies.  The rights of an individual citizen of the United States were not changeable, could not be abolished, nor could they be bestowed.  Humans possessed these rights by virtue of being created in the image of God.

Today housing, jobs, health care, transportation, food, childcare are identified as “rights”.  They are not. Furthermore, when we treat them as such, we are treading into an extra-Constitutional boggy swamp.  “Rights” that are invented and then distributed “fairly” after taking money from other citizens to pay for them are simply favors give to specific groups at the expense of individual citizens.

These Leftist ideas should alert us that our Country is traveling into an uninhabitable landscape.  Indeed Voegeli concludes his article with a plea to “turn around and go back”—wise words to cling to during this “Summer of Recovery” when we continue to hear that we cannot “go back”.

Voegeli’s summary is below.  Take the time to read his entire article.  It is well worth it.

“C. S. Lewis wrote that since progress means getting closer to your goal, when you’ve taken a wrong turn and are getting farther and farther from your destination, the truly “progressive” response is to turn around and go back to the right road. Most conservatives believe that America took a wrong turn in 1932, one that has led us farther away from the goal of preserving and strengthening republican self-government. Self-styled progressives talked us into that navigational error, and in the subsequent 78 years their liberal disciples have continued on the wrong road, superintending a rolling regime change that has steadily hollowed out our constitutional republic and replaced it with an administrative state, one increasingly indifferent to ordinary citizens’ concerns and insulated from their opposition.

The conservatives now reviving constitutionalism are rightly insistent on the need to retrace our steps, and to undo the mistakes that have supplanted limited with unlimited government. The point is not to go back to 1932 and stay there, compiling a list of things government cannot do and problems it cannot address. The point, rather, is to resume progress on the road not taken: toward a government that is both limited and vigorous, scrupulous about upholding the principles of republicanism but energetic and prudent about working within the framework created by those principles to respond to economic and social changes with policies that advance the people’s prosperity and security.”

— William Voegeli is a contributing editor of The Claremont Review of Books and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College’s Salvatori Center.

Filed under: big government, , , , , ,

THE PYRRHIC VICTORY OF “OBAMACARE”

Cartoon by Erin Bonsteel

On National Review online, Jeffrey H. Anderson has written a piece called, “The Battle Is Lost, and the War Has Begun”.  His views are worthwhile to read on this day after our hard fought battle against Obamacare has ended in defeat.  Mr. Anderson is right, I believe, concerning the conflicts to come over this Bill that was narrowly passed in the House last night. Obamacare is not the last word on our health care system.  It will not stand, but neither will it have its legs cut off in quick fashion.  And, let us not lose sight of the fact that this is only the opening gambit in a war against the American people and their Constitution.  Obama and his soldiers will not long linger on this victory.  They have immigration “reform”, Cap and Trade, card check, regulation of the airwaves and internet, among other things, still to accomplish.

It is important for us to ensure that the passage of this Bill is simply a “Pyrrhic Victory”.  Read its definition:

The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch  relates in a report by Dionysius:

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.-Wikipedia


Obama has expended tremendous political capital, as well as financial capital, to pass this very unpopular Bill—the thing that will define his Presidency.  We, on the other hand, are like the Romans that Pyrrhus describes, “not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war”.

Ben Stein offers these words of comfort and encouragement in the aftermath of this exhausting contest:

For those of us who still believe in the Constitution, I offer the words of the great civil rights anthem, “We shall overcome, ” and “We are not afraid.” In that spirit, we continue the fight for the return to Constitutional government. Loyal to the nation and the Constitution, but most certainly opposed to the subversion or either.

As Churchill said, “In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance.” And this is a war for Constitutional government. A war of words, to be sure, but a war we must win.

For those of you who have read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, (or have at least seen the movies), remember that the Balrog did not pass Gandalf on the bridge, but took him into the void using one last desperate lunge.  However, even then Gandalf did not stop fighting it, and in the end the Balrog was defeated.  May this be a parable for our own circumstances and give us true hope.

Hang on until November, and during the ensuing 7 months let our battle cry be, “Resist.  Roll back. Repeal.”

God bless you.  God bless our beloved America.

Filed under: healthcare, LEGISLATION, liberal activism, U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , , ,

U.S. (SLAUGHTER) HOUSE

Well, what will they think of next?  I am utterly amazed, though perhaps I shouldn’t be, at the lengths that Pelosi, et. al. will go to in order to force the passage of the immensely unpopular Obamacare bill.  The most recent shameless tactic is being designed by Rep. Louise Slaughter, hence its name the “Slaughter Solution”.  If used, it will definitely live up to its name!

Mary Katharine Ham at the Weekly Standard sums up the measure below:

Symbolism: Dems Mull Ramming of Health-Care With ‘Slaughter Solution’
3:21 PM, Mar 10, 2010 ·
BY Mary Katharine Ham


Congress Daily reports today that the Senate may try to find a way to pass the Senate bill without a final House vote. Sounds improbable, but Rube Goldberg would be proud.

I present to you the Slaughter Solution, devised by Rep. Louise Slaughter. (What Sen. Death Panel was not available to put his name to it?). Via Congress Daily ($):

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said.

NRO: “Crucially, it gives the lie — in a big, big way — to the Democratic narrative that health-care reform should and will be finished via simple “majority rule,” and not bound up in the arcane rules of the United States Senate.”

From the GOP Leader blog: “You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House.  Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply ‘deeming’ the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.”

The blogosphere has been replete with analysis of using this twisted tactic.  At the Foundry Blog there is a very good description of the strategy, the implementation process and its Constitutional problems.  An excerpt follows:

Procedurally, this would happen in the following order.  The House Rules Committee would approve this self-executing rule.  The House would vote on the rule that allows this scenario.  Then the House will vote on the reconciliation measure.  Upon passage of the reconciliation measure the Senate Obamacare bill will be deemed to have passed the House and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate.  This so called “Deeming Resolution” is a trick that allows the House to pass a bill they never voted upon.  Therefore, the real vote on the pro-abortion Senate passed bill will be the vote on the rule to allow this scenario to roll out on the House floor.

One provision that may make the rule is a provision that does not allow the House to report the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President until the Senate passes a reconciliation bill.  Bills are enrolled before being sent to the President for his signature and the House can prevent the enrollment and delivery of Obamacare to the President until the Senate completes work on the reconciliation measure.  Sound complicated?  Yes and it is supposed to so the American people can’t understand that the House is on the verge of passing an unpopular Obamacare bill, yet they are reserving the right to claim that they did not vote for the Senate passed bill.

For a more complete understanding of the “Slaughter Solution” and its consequences for passage of Obamacare, take time to read the entries from the New York Post, Red State, American Thinker and Big Government.

This is Chicago slaughter house politics at its best, or worst depending on how one looks at it.  “If they bring a knife to the the fight, we bring a gun”, our Dear Leader has said.  The “Slaughter Solution” is not a gun, it is a nuclear bomb.


Filed under: U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , , , ,

WITH A FRIEND LIKE LINDSEY, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?

Yesterday, there was a meeting at the White House.  It wasn’t about Healthcare Reform.  It was about how important it is for the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy-climate bill!

Following are excerpts from an AP article concerning this bill:

A bill sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., aims to cut emissions of pollution-causing greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020. The bill would abandon a broad “cap-and-trade” approach to reducing carbon pollution. Instead it would apply different carbon controls to different sectors of the economy.

Republicans and business groups oppose [it] because it would raise the price of oil and coal.

Kerry and other lawmakers are looking at cutting the nation’s output of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by targeting, in separate ways, three major sources of emissions: electric utilities, transportation and industry.

The legislation would also expand domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities.

“There’s not 60 votes doing energy only for offshore drilling. There’s not 60 votes for nuclear power the way I would like. Only when you marry up climate change—cleaning up the air—with energy independence do you get” to 60 votes in the Senate, he said.  “If you’re a Republican, and you believe we should ‘drill, baby, drill,’ now’s your chance,” Graham said.

Really, Senator Graham?  So, in order to exploit our own energy resources, we are to be compelled to pay more to use them.  That’s a pretty small carrot attached to one whale of a stick.  We will pay more for gasoline, more for utilities and more for anything that is shipped, (which is just about everything).  At the same time that we are producing more energy, (if you believe that will ever really happen), we will be forced to use less, due to its upward spiraling price.  This plan, according to our friend, Lindsey, is in the interest of “cleaning up the air”, which he somehow he equates with “climate change”.   This fiction is no longer, if it ever was, a good reason for Government regulation and management of yet another private U.S. industry.

Senator Graham, needs to follow the example of Senator Specter and join the Democrat Party rather than continuing to masquerade as a (RINO) Republican.  Lending support to this bill is in no way supporting American business, nor the American people.  Our friend, Lindsey, needs to hear our voices loud and clear on this issue, and the voices of South Carolina need to be the loudest and clearest of all.

Filed under: U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , , , ,

HMMMM, WHAT’S MASSA’S ANGLE?

The National Review Online “Corner” published this information today:

Breaking: Massa Was Investigated for Groping Male Staffers   [Daniel Foster]

Sources familiar with a House ethics panel’s probe of former Rep. Eric Massa (D., N.Y.) tell the Washington Post he was under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office:

The allegations surrounding the former lawmaker date back at least a year, and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment,” according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

[. . .]

According to two sources familiar with the probe, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff Ron Hikel provided the information about the staffers’ allegations to the House ethics committee three weeks ago. Hikel had earlier sought advice from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office about brewing internal complaints, the sources said, and had been urged to report the allegations to the committee.

This should make the Beck interview a bit more interesting.

I still love, and agree with, what Massa said about the Administration.  Was it the truth?  That is the question that, hopefully, the Beck interview will answer.

Filed under: U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , ,

Obama’s New ‘Poverty’ Measurement Setting a new national goal: class warfare-by Robert Rector

Below I have reprinted the excellent article by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.

Although defeating The Healthcare Reform Bill in the House is of paramount importance, we cannot lose sight of the other measures that the Obama Administration is trying to enact in the interests of “hope and change”.  Lest we awake one day in the near future and find that the America that we love has been “hoped and changed” out of existence, we must continue to stay informed and fight against these leftist policies.

Here is Robert Rector’s article:

This week, the Obama administration announced it will create a new poverty-measurement system that will eventually displace the current poverty measure. This new measure, which has little or nothing to do with actual poverty, will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”

Under the new measure, a family will be judged “poor” if its income falls below a certain specified income threshold. Nothing new there, but, unlike the current poverty standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause: They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.

The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.

The Left has promoted this idea of an ever-rising poverty measure for a long time. It was floated at the beginning of the War on Poverty and flatly rejected by Pres. Lyndon Johnson. Not so President Obama, who consistently seeks to expand the far-left horizons of U.S. politics.

The weird new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically triple over night, the new poverty measure would show there had been no drop in “poverty,” because the poverty income threshold would also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the “poor” are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else.

Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the United States, even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely bad. Haiti would probably have a very low poverty rate when measured by the Obama system because the earthquake reduced much of the population to a uniform penniless squalor.

According to Obama’s measure, economic growth per se has no impact on poverty. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold, after adjusting for inflation. However, from Obama’s perspective, this increase in real incomes had no impact on poverty, because the wages of those at the bottom of the income distribution did not rise faster than the incomes of those in the middle.

What has the Obama measure to do with actual poverty? Not much. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 40 million per­sons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

The government’s own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.

Clearly, “poverty” as currently defined by the government has little connection with “poverty” as the average American understands it. The new Obama poverty measure will stretch this semantic gap, artificially swelling the number of “poor” Americans, and severing any link between the government’s concept of poverty and even modest deprivation.

In honest English, the new system will measure income inequality, not poverty. Why not just call it an “inequality” index? Answer: because the American voter is unwilling to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. The new measure is a public-relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a “spread the wealth” agenda under the ruse of fighting real material privation — a condition that is rare in our society.

True, the new Obama measure will not, at present, alter benefits or expand eligibility for welfare programs. But the new measure does establish a new philosophy of poverty. For the first time, the government is planning to define poverty as a problem that can never be solved by the American dream: a general rise of incomes of all Americans across society over time. By definition, poverty can now be solved only by the dream of the Left: massive taxes on the upper and middle classes and redistribution to the less affluent. In effect, the Obama poverty measure sets a new national goal of class warfare and income redistribution. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, massive “wealth spreading” is already under way. This year, government will spend some $900 billion on means-tested aid for the poor and low-income persons, around $9,000 for each American in the low-income third of the population. According to the Left, that’s not nearly enough. The new poverty measure will use deception to promote a much larger welfare state. Taxpayers, beware.

MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON RECTOR’S ARTICLE: A rising tide will never lift all boats in an effective way with this philosophy, because some boats originally started at a higher level. The goal of this sort of measure is to urge me to focus on how much higher those original boats are instead of how much higher my boat is.  This philosophy fairly stinks of endless “class warfare”, endless “unfairness”, endless “victimization”, an endless sense of failure and an utter surrender to that sense of failure. There is no room for individual achievement in this philosophy.  It truly lays the foundation for change, and hopelessness.


Filed under: U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , , , ,

GOVERNMENT LAND GRAB

As if we were not concerned enough about the Government taking over the Healthcare Industry, here is another area of concern—Government plans to take additional land from the private sector, to make it off limits for development, energy exploration, etc.  But, what would happen to all these Federal lands should we default on our Federal debts?  I’m just wondering.

Read also the results of this Harvard Study.  Question: Does a Government land grab have anything to do with needing the price of gasoline to rise in order to further the “progressive” agenda?

Filed under: POTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , ,

MAPQUEST-ARE WE THERE YET?

I have a lousy sense of direction.  When traveling, I arm myself with a map, two sets of written directions and a list of landmarks.  I still lose my way.  Exits beckon to me.  Road signs confuse me.  Assuring remarks like, “Trust me, you can’t miss it”, terrify me.  I can panic even when I am not lost.  So, maybe being “directionally challenged” has made it difficult for me to follow the maps produced by the Obama Administration.  Am I lost?  Or, as I see each landmark pass, am I simply panicked for no reason?

During the past year, Mr. Obama and his comrades have manufactured a lot of maps.  Maps for the economy, healthcare, energy, housing, jobs, education, climate change and National security.  Although attractive in presentation, they appear to lack crucial elements.  Large areas are marked, “Unknown Territory” and “There Be Dragons Here”.  Compass points are skewed—true North is always oriented leftward.  Roads meander aimlessly and often reach a dead-end at a deep gorge marked, “Bridge Out”.  Nevertheless, the urgent message is that these maps must be followed or we will be hopelessly lost.  (I think I hear, “Trust me, you can’t miss it”—excuse me while I shudder).  Where do these maps really lead?  Where are we going?

Here is the most exasperating aspect of these maps.  They include no avenue leading to factual, rational discussion of how they have been drawn.  If one points out that such-and-such a road does not correspond to reality, or that a particular feature does not exist, or that there is no bridge spanning that river the response is to criticize the critic.  The cartographers will not engage in a meaningful analysis of their efforts.  Nor do they have an attitude open to correcting their mistakes.  Instead, they defend their maps with twisted statistics, partial truths and downright lies.  In the end, they are reduced to reiterating that failure to follow their roads will lead to ruin.  Moreover, we are promised that pursuing these paths will lead to a utopia filled with human goodness.  The way will be “difficult”, it is said, but nothing really worthwhile is easy.  For my part, I fear that these map-makers are related somehow to the Pied Piper!

It seems to me that the inability to deal with facts and specific details in an honest manner should alarm us.  Not only does it signal bad charting, it indicates even worse leadership.  Those who will not clearly articulate what our destination is to be, nor explain in detail the roads that will take us there, are either ignorant, or worse, diabolical.  I mistrust these maps.  More and more I believe that they mark the way to totalitarianism and slavery.

I see an exit marked “2010”.  It is beckoning me.  It doesn’t appear on the map.  That’s why I’m taking it.

Filed under: personal, Uncategorized, , , , , ,

PEOPLE IN CLASS HOUSES OUGHT NOT TO THROW STONES

Yesterday the POTUS showed rare genuine emotion when speaking.  So, what motivated his heartfelt expression of feeling?  Terrorist attacks?  The Haitian earthquake?  No, it was his plan to tax the banks who took TARP money.  The new bank “fee” is expected to generated $90 billion over the next ten years, although Mr. Obama stated that the “fee” would be enforced, “until they [the American people] are fully compensated”.  Oh, really?  Raise your hand if you believe that any of we commoners will be “compensated” even one dollar from this scheme.  Where will all this money go instead?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Duh, campaigns, lobbyists, pay-offs to special interests, buy-offs of Legislators, etc., etc.

Mr. Obama went on to say that this measure was being taken, “not to punish” the banks, (who, by the way, have paid back the TARP loans with interest, so what would there be to punish?), but “to prevent the abuse and excess” that led to the present economic difficulties.  The POTUS ended by telling the banks not to “fight” his proposed “fee”, but to simply pay it.  Wow!  The King speaks.  We obey.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Obama has not passionately spoken against the “abuse and excess” of Government in general, nor his Administration in particular.  What I would like is for all the Democrats to “compensate” the American people for the recent excessive spending.  They could start by reimbursing us for the party that they all enjoyed in Copenhagen last month.  However, hypocrites never follow their own standards.

Class warfare is a tried and true tactic of the hard Left.  Whether this type of strategy will be successful in dividing us, distracting us and furthering a socialist-fascist agenda is questionable.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  The American people are smarter than they give us credit for being.

P.S.  On a matter somewhat related to those residing in class, (or glass), houses, please take the time to read about what Florida Rep. Buchanan (R) is attempting to do with his discharge petition in the House of Representatives.  It is good to know that some of our elected representatives believe in glass houses that are actually transparent!

Filed under: LEGISLATION, POTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , , , , , ,

"His eye is on the sparrow, and He surely watches me." --Mrs. Doolittle, 1905

Archives