The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Hand It Over, Nancy

By

A chart showing one interpretation of the House’s health care reform legislation contained in the official record of the House Ways and Means Committee can’t be sent out to Americans.

Why?

Because the Franking Commission, who decides what mailings Congress pays for, said it isn’t acceptable.

Why?

Ya think that maybe – just maybe – it might be because the chart was put together by Republicans?

Dan Lungren (R-CA) said, “I’ve been told it was above the Franking Commission and our committee. This is not accidental.”

You can bet your last Dove Bar it’s not.

Let’s not forget here that members of the House (and the Franking Commission) are paid employees of the American people and we have every right to know what they are doing.  We, the people, also provide them the funding to mail us information.

The chart is ours.  We own it.

Hand it over, Nancy.

The Transparency Of Promises

By

Many of us saw through the rhetoric long before the November election.  Many are only now starting to see that the meaning of words is only important when it suits Barack Obama and his personal agenda. 

Wrangling votes for the “cap and trade” legislation in the House, Obama backed off a campaign promise to auction off all “allowances” – permits to release a set amount of greenhouse gases. Instead of selling them to raise money for other environmental initiatives, the White House allowed congressional Democratic leaders to trade them for votes, assigning allowances to the refinery-heavy district of, for instance, Texas Rep. Gene Green in exchange for his support.

Obama’s political operation has dispensed with its post-inauguration cocktails for Republicans – or more often, ignoring them outright — in favor of the old politics of engage, attack and cajole. Obama’s even engaging in a little Democrat-on-Democrat politics, as his ex-campaign arm is beaming TV ads into the home states of moderate fence-sitters on health care.

Wanting “health care reform” legislation shoved willy-nilly and unread through both the House and the Senate before the August recess, and

As unemployment rises and economic forecasts sour, the White House has delayed until August the release of its mid-year budget review, which is likely to include a revised projection of the 2009 deficit.

“Let’s be honest about what this is: an attempt to hide a record-breaking deficit as Democratic leaders break arms to rush through a government takeover of healthcare,” said John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House of Representatives.

“By burying this budget update until after Congress leaves town next month, the administration is not willing to own up to the consequences of this dangerous fiscal agenda,” he said.

The White House Office of Management and Budget called the delay normal for the first year of a new presidential term.

Normal?  Maybe.  But under the circumstances, it is simply another example of the dangerous recklessness and lack of transparency that has become the hallmark of this administration.  It’s even beginning to dawn on Obama’s close allies in Congress (though more probably because they fear for their own relection bids than because of any legitimate morals or principles or respect of law).

In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion [war spending] bill, Obama said [in June] he wouldn’t allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan’s birthday.

Now Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; Representative Nita Lowey and Representative Gregory Meeks, both of New York, who chair subcommittees on those panels, have taken exception to this Executive Branch overstepping of boundaries set by Congress within pieces of legislation and even put their “concerns” in writing:

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush’s) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce.  We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

Bummer, Reps.  Welcome to the world of your constituents.

Remind Me, Please, Who’s Running The Car Companies?

By

The Obama administration broke laws when it interferred with Chrysler’s bankruptcy, and Obama’s “car czar” helped put together operational plans that promptly slammed the doors shut on 789 Chrysler dealerships.  You know, those places that are in (private) business to help the car companies sell their products?  The (private) businesses that make the car companies money?

Now the House has approved an amendment to the House Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that blocks federal money for both Chrysler’s and GM’s reorganizations if they shut down dealerships.  There is similar, standalone legislation pending in the House as well (H.R.2796) that has pulled in 242 House sponsors in just a matter of weeks (including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who argued during Thursday’s floor debate that this was a way for dealers who had been left out of bankruptcy decisions to be heard.)

The Senate is taking a similar tack, with a bill proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) coming out of the gate with significant support from 25 co-sponsors (S.1304), including 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats.  It has been sent to the Judiciary Committee, but Committee chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), has yet to schedule a hearing and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this week he isn’t inclined to allow a vote on any measure forcing the dealerships to stay open.

“We will not give billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler until they come to terms with the hundreds of thousands of people out of work,” Representative Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) said during [House] floor debate on the bill.

“The decision to invest taxpayer dollars into these companies required all stakeholders to make difficult sacrifices, and it would set a dangerous precedent, potentially raising legal concerns, to intervene into a closed judicial bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of one particular group at this point,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday.Perhaps the White House should have thought of these things before they made their decision to interfere with the private sector and “not run” the car companies (into the ground) in the first place?

Next On Obama Administration Chicago-Style Hit List: Arizona

By

Based on details outlined in Jake Tapper’s blog, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey lays out another example of Obama administration Chicago-style relationship building today.  It seems that Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, noticing how well the first one – now being touted as really being designed to help us out NEXT year, you silly people – has worked out, dared to question the necessity of a second stimulus package.

“…the reality is it hasn’t helped yet. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it.”

But in this strange, new land of “I won”, common sense is no longer allowed.  Nor is telling the Obama administration to stop anything.  The Arizona governor promptly received a few snarky letters:

“…from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood,  Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar all pointing out the billions headed to Arizona.

“Kyl ‘publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren’t presently underway,’ LaHood wrote to Brewer, a Republican. ‘I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know.'”

And there you have the perspective of America held by Obama and his administration.  The royal “we” are making money available but if you don’t want it, they won’t send it to you. 

How quickly the royal “we” has forgotten that the money they are “making available” belongs to the people of Arizona and the rest of the people of the United States in the first place.  They feel they can threaten to keep YOUR money from you.  Kyle and Senator John McCain didn’t hesitate to remind them and call them out on their blatant political games:

“We were very disappointed to learn of the letters that you and other members of the Cabinet sent to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer about stimulus spending and that you would allow your good offices to be used so obviously for political purposes.

“Secretary LaHood’s suggestion that the Administration will “make available” to Arizonans tax dollars that they pay is patently offensive.

“We hope this does not characterize your dealings with the Congress in the future.”

Dr. Phil is fond of saying that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.  We’re not alone here in noting how many times President Obama or those in his administration resort to threats when confronted with common sense or the Constitution so I’m afraid Kyle and McCain, indeed the entire country, are going to be pretty disappointed.

Senator Kyl said:

“It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings.  Instead, they have resorted to coordinated political attacks with the Democratic National Committee and the politicization of departments of government by using cabinet secretaries to issue thinly veiled threats to the Governor and the people of Arizona.  Since even the President acknowledges the stimulus isn’t working as well as he hoped, the administration should instead be willing to consider whether the unallocated stimulus money could be put to better use.”

Unfortunate, indeed.  But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the teleprompter to tell me things are going to change any time soon.

Donkeys, Dictators, and Democracy

By

It’s a given that the vast majority of Democrats, particularly those in government, can be counted on to be little more than your basic hairball.  Traditionally unable to keep their hands where they belong – reaching into someone else’s pockets to take their money or reaching into someone else’s pants to have a little illicit fun – no one pays them very much attention because as a group they are as interchangeable as dandelion puffs waving in the prevailing wind of wants.  The word Democrat brings to mind at best the picture of a spoiled teenager; at worst stereotypical trailer trash living off of someone else’s hard-earned money in their double-wide, a beer belly sticking out from below a grubby tank top, guffawing between belches or through smeared lipstick while the neighbor’s kid ties firecrackers to the dog’s tail.

Republicans, on the other hand, have balanced the sociopolitical scales by assuming the role of “responsible adult”.  Steady, conservative, practical.  The businessman whose word is his bond and to whom you can turn for a job or a loan; the father who teaches you how to fix your car or the family doctor who knows you inside and out – literally – but keeps your deepest secrets a secret.

Truth is that the hands of Republicans today are just as dirty and they stink just as bad as their trashy Democratic counterparts.  (Witness the outing of the infamous 8 GOP “cap & traitors”.)  With few exceptions, politicians have become quite a useless lot, spouting whatever they think someone wants to hear just to keep their cushy job and perceptions of power and control.  As long as they bring home the pork they continue to be reelected, but this has become a dangerous game. 

President Obama campaigned on and took office determined to force an ambitious and incredibly naive agenda on Americans.  In direct contrast to the vow taken to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, he and his administration are setting forth the systematic destruction of our most fundamental rights, twisting the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as he pushes America towards what is essentially a state of dictatorial tyranny.  And you can’t even give him credit for these ambitions, he is merely carrying forward the progressive ideology that took hold in America early in the last century.

You’d think Americans would be smarter now and would be resisting with all their might.  Everyone knows you don’t get something for nothing and that you get what you pay for, yet every day we watch bloated and ineffective government programs continue to expand in number and size.  Well, at least some of us watch.  And there remains a small chorus of voices in Washington who seem to be attempting to pull back on the reigns, but reading through the daily Congressional session records one sees each attempt is met with a wall of resistence and summarily executed.  (Amusing when you remember the MSM has labelled the GOP as the “party of no”.)  We’ve got little more than giddy kiddie Democrats running what they see as the candy store; the current gang mentality has criminals coming out of the woodwork like ants attracted to the sweet fruits of hard-working American taxpayers and, as is so often seen with any group of lawless like-minds, one can only hope their infighting over turf and spoils will be their downfall.  But without taking down the entire country with them.

Some people are still saying we should give the President a chance, even as our economy continues to tank (responsibility for which, by the way, now belongs solely to Barack Obama and his administration).  But it seems to me that the elected leader of a free nation would not be ignoring the calls of the people for democracy elsewhere in the world, and they would certainly not stand up and give their visible support to someone like legally-ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya.  That particular stance should give anyone with a modicum of common sense pause for it explains, in large part, why we are seeing proven ineffective policy after proven ineffective policy being forced down American’s throats.  The case of events in Honduras is particularly telling, for it is a beautiful example of a people’s willingness to cling to democratic ideals and uphold their constitution.  Yet Obama unequivocably tells the world he believes – as do dictators like Venezuela’s Chavez – that someone who would wish to subvert them deserves America’s backing.  

If Obama’s silence on the Iranian election fallout didn’t make it clear, this should be the transparency he so lovingly promised.  We have a president who has now stated for the record that he prefers government by dictatorship to government by the principles of democracy.

Everything Else Is Negotiable (Including Your Health Care)

By

Having otherwise-intelligent liberal friends still hawking past-expiration-date Obama campaign Kool-Aid makes it easy to find the spin being put out by the administration and the media.  So-called “health care reform” is the next big attack looming over American freedoms and it was with interest I read a article sent to impress me and my friend’s other correspondents with the “efforts” of the current Chicago politicians holding Americans hostage from Washington.

These are some excerpts from the rather long article that ought to make everyone with common sense shudder: 

Rather than laying out an intricate plan and then trying to sell it on the Hill, as Clinton did, Obama’s strategy seems to be exactly the opposite — to sell himself to Congress first and worry about the details later.  As Emanuel likes to tell his West Wing staff: “The only nonnegotiable principle here is success. Everything else is negotiable.”

Obama’s aggressive courtship of Congress is plotted and directed by Emanuel…[and he] has taken an unusually personal role in handling Congress. One of the first things he did as chief of staff was to give out his cellphone number to every Democratic senator (and some Republicans too)…his social calendar is taken up by dinners with former House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, often at one of the trendy downtown restaurants he favors.

The second tenet of Emanuel’s theory is that the White House itself comes with strategic assets you can put to good use, if you allocate them properly. There’s the White House theater, where guests can watch movies and sporting events; formal state dinners; smaller gatherings in the first family’s residence, which spouses can join; tickets to the Easter-egg roll for kids; tickets to the White House tours that members like to give out to their constituents. …in Obama’s nascent administration, they are considered carefully and accounted for obsessively. Emanuel holds a daily legislative meeting at which aides discuss the status of pending legislation, and often they go over the distribution of White House assets during those sessions. “We have a tracking system,” Emanuel told me. “Who came to watch the football game? Who came to watch the basketball game?”

…friction between House and Senate Democrats now seems to have reached a point where they might want to build their own virtual fence down the middle of the rotunda.  [Obama] simply encourages the House to go wild, and then he relies on centrists in the Senate to do the unpleasant work of scaling back the legislation, which yields a more politically palatable bill…. And while House and Senate leaders may end up wanting to throttle one another, Obama gets to play the reluctant arbiter between the two, rather than actually having to challenge his base.

 It’s an impressive balancing act, but it may not be sustainable as the emotional debate over health care unfolds. Some House Democrats I talked to have already begun to wonder audibly why they’re the ones who always have to surrender in Emanuel’s middle-of-the-night negotiating sessions. They accuse Reid and his lieutenants of repeatedly placating Republicans to avoid a filibuster, rather than taking a stand on principle now and then. Why not force centrist Democrats to vote against their party and let Republicans filibuster the agenda on national television? What would the voters think then? Centrists in the Senate, meanwhile, have grown furious at some of Pelosi’s backroom maneuvering — most notably, the final negotiations over the stimulus bill, when she brazenly reinserted $50 million in arts funding that had been struck as part of an earlier compromise.

During his campaign last year, Obama took at least two positions on health care that he may soon find hard to maintain. First, in the primaries, he differentiated his plan from Hillary Clinton’s by refusing to back an “individual mandate” — that is, the provision that would require every American to obtain insurance. Then, during the fall campaign, Obama criticized John McCain for proposing to tax employer-based health benefits. If he were to offer a detailed proposal of his own right now, Obama might have to…reverse himself on one or both positions. But with Baucus urging him to leave the details to his committee, Obama can instead wait for a plan to emerge from the Senate and then, if need be, reluctantly change his mind in the interest of compromise. Thus he preserves the option of backing away from his previous anti-big-government stances, and he gets to appear statesmanlike and pragmatic in the process. 

[Senator] Baucus remarked … offhandedly that Obama “didn’t really serve in the Senate,” which seems to be the prevailing sentiment among senators who saw him for only a brief time before he took off to run for president.

Obama seems to have decided early on that his model for pursuing legislation would be something closer to Ronald Reagan, a president whose political savvy he has often expressed admiration for.

Though such machinations have been the unfortunate part and parcel of politics since the first caveman bartered a piece of meat for a lump of burning coal, I can only imagine that Ronnie is rolling over in his grave.  As a small but critical prelude to our upcoming focus on the dangers inherent in and lies surrounding the next Obama agenda item for his destruction of America, I think it fitting to let Ronald Reagan himself speak to us one more time about the topic of “socialized medicine”.  Words spoken while he was “just” another American citizen, like you and me:

“Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.  All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she, too, is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.“

 

Why Character & Integrity Matter

By

The news about South Carolina Governor Sanford’s extramarital affair is sad on many levels.  Certainly it is a heartbreaking matter for his wife and his sons; their family unit has been breached by an outsider and the source of the breach is the man whose responsibility it was to protect them.

The liberal press, as is their way, used it as a feeding frenzy; not in small part because it allows them to sling arrows instead of dodging them for the few moments that anyone is going to really pay attention to this.  And now that Governor’s admitted his infidelity, every shred of documentation that a grubby hand can snatch is being thrust into public view with snarky, knowing, holier-than-thou eagerness to gain ratings.  Kudos to his wife for having no part of it.

Pseudo-conservatives are wringing their hands over what is also a breach to the GOP’s perceived integrity and lamenting what is most assuredly the loss of one of their golden boys for the 2012 presidential election. 

You could almost feel the collective sigh of relief when the sudden death of pop star Michael Jackson diverted the media’s ever-fickle attention to even more juicier pickings.

While Governor Sanford’s actions deserve no more than a minute of our time in which to make note of them, there are elements here that are important.  I have always believed that what people do in the privacy of their homes and how they manage their relationships is their own business.  I do not believe in legislating morality but instead in choosing one’s friends and associates carefully, with an eye to their integrity and character.  You can, indeed, tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.  The old adage that birds of a feather flock together is A Truth; we are drawn to like minds and through our interactions we continually influence one another.   Whether we like it, admit it, or even realize it we draw lines and we choose to support – on many, varied levels ranging from emotional to material – those who hold and, most importantly, demonstrate similar beliefs and values.

So the question here is that of character and integrity.  Sure, we’re all human and we all make mistakes, but if you’re going to deliberately put yourself in a position of influence and take on the perceived authority of leadership, there is a price you must pay.  And that price does not include any baggage allowance for hypocrisy.  You may bring your vices, but your character must be sound and your integrity unquestionable. 

It is really none of anyone’s business that, like so many, many politicians, Governor Sanford chose to break his marriage vows, but I DO care – as should you – that by doing so he reveals himself to be just another garden-variety hypocrite.  He is on record voicing condemnations of Bill Clinton for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky yet now tearfully admits to equal lies without demanding equal consequences for himself.

When considering any issue, from health care to taxes, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.  The most stellar feature of America is her systemic application of blind justice and I believe, as I dare say do most people, that consequences must apply equally in moral matters as in legal.  Moral matters may sometimes be more murky to bring to justice without the weight of someone being able to point to some last word,  “buck stops here” set down in wet cement, however, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.  For if we hold no firm line on what we consider to be moral and ethical, there can be no trust.  And in the end, it is the ability to trust that is paramount in both our personal relationships and in our business dealings.  The latter being the area in which people like Governor Sanford enter into the picture.

I believe it is valid to ask the question:  if Governor Sanford’s family – those closest to him – cannot trust him to uphold his responsibility to them, how can we, who are literally virtual strangers, trust him to uphold his responsibility to us? 

To me the answer is that we can’t.  Perhaps he has at last learned the lesson that there but for the grace of God go I, but I didn’t hear him apologize to Bill Clinton or anyone else during his public confession, did you?  Anyone who is willing to lie about something as important as their marital fidelity cannot be trusted to not lie about anything else important when it becomes necessarily convenient for them.  One big lie calls into question everything ever said and taints everything ever done with the poison of suspicion.  And once broken, trust is very, very hard to repair and it takes a very long time to do it.

Millions of Americans live their lives with character and integrity.  We may not agree with their opinions or with their choices but it can be said they are consistent, even as they evolve (as we all do).  There is no reason to not expect the same from those we elect to represent us. 

None.

Tax cheats, adulterers, and liars are not representative of me or my life.  Are they representative of you or yours?  If the answer is honestly no, then it is time to take a good, hard look at those in government and decide if what their character and integrity – especially the lack thereof – reflects upon us is worth keeping. 

I don’t know how the answer can be yes.

Insanity Wins Again

By

It was close and there were even real doubts it would actually happen, but at the end of what felt like an eternal 15 minutes for the final vote, the House passed HR 2454 yesterday; its infamous energy cap & tax …errrr… trade legislation.  Despite being called out for the use of not only erroneous but governmentally-driven deliberately-skewed science, and despite there being not even one valid reason to throw the U.S. economy into a depression by taxing Americans for…everything, Nancy Pelosi achieved her goal of being able to pack her bag for Copenhagen, where she desperately wanted to be able to boast that the House is willing to step up to the delusion of global warming.

This was another case where very few (if any) had read the entire 1,200-odd page bill (including Henry Waxman, its primary sponsor), and a 300 page amendment was tossed onto the stinking, steaming pile at 2:30 a.m. Friday morning.  I suspect only John Boehner (R-OH) had given the amendment more than a glance; he actually led the House through a review of it before the final vote and it was heartwarming to hear him point out its insanity, point by point.

But insanity seems to be the norm these days and even spelling out the appalling consequences in plain English couldn’t trump it.

The vote was close:  219 – 212 with 3 not voting.  In the end, passage of this tyrannical legislation swung on 8 Republicans who voted to tax their constituents and the country into oblivion.  Here is the list of traitors; whether or not they are your own unrepresenting representative they need to understand America’s anger with the damage they’ve done so now is the time to (again) flex those 1st Amendment muscles and pick up the phone.  Let them know they have disgraced themselves by selling out all Americans to lies and special interests and they will receive no further support unless they make this right.   They have until July 2nd to change their vote so CALL THEM:

  1. Mary Bono Mack (CA) – (760) 320-1076 or (951) 658-2312
  2. Mike Castle (DE) – (302) 428-1902 or (302) 736-1666 or (302) 856-3334
  3. Steven Kirk (IL) – (847) 940-0202
  4. Leonard Lance (NJ) – (908) 518-7733 or (908) 788-6900
  5. Frank LoBiondo (NJ) – (609) 625-5008
  6. Chris Smith (NJ) – (609) 585-7878 or (732) 350-2300
  7. John McHugh (NY) – (315) 782-3150 or (518) 563-1406 or (518) 661-6486 or (315) 697-2063
  8. Dave Reichert (WA) – (206) 275-3438

While it was fascinating to watch the day’s events play out, I find this whole matter extremely maddening. Despite rumors this will never make it through the Senate, it’s more important than ever that those particular pantywaisted waffles understand – in no uncertain terms – that their job is to squash this like the poisonous bug it is.

UPDATE:  It was revealed today that this bill voted on by the House doesn’t even exist.  That’s right.  IT DOESN’T EVEN EXIST.  Apparently Friday’s late-night 300-page amendment has not yet been integrated into the final version of the bill.  The two big piles of paper are sitting side-by-side on a clerk’s desk waiting to be pieced together.

So not only did no one actually read the whole bill before voting on it, they couldn’t have read it even if they’d wanted to read it.

This, my friends, is YOUR hard-earned tax dollars at work.

The Moon Is Down

By

John Steinbeck penned this small, quiet novel back in 1942.  I picked up my old, pre-publication copy at a used book sale many years ago, having finally decided to fill the classical literature void in my small library by reading the works of those esteemed writers who’d somehow been missed while growing up.

It is not much like the works of Steinbeck with which most are familiar.  His big novels of the Great Depression are somehow more accessible, yet this little book has haunted me since my first reading of it and now, as the Moon goes down over my beloved America, I decided to return to it.

I was not disappointed.  Though almost effortlessly short, the story of the relationship between conquerers and those they have conquered in what was a surprise and nearly bloodless battle, set during the time the Nazis were moving through Europe, is deceiving in its uncanny insights into human nature and the nature of war. 

Two quotes remain with me:

“That is a great mystery,” said Doctor Winter.  “That is a mystery that has disturbed rulers all over the world – how the people know.  It disturbs the invaders now, I am told, how news runs through censorships, how the truth of things fights free of control.  It is a great mystery.”

“You see, sir, nothing can change it.  You will be destroyed and driven out.”  His voice was very soft.  “The people don’t like to be conquered, sir, and so they will not be.  Free men cannot start a war, but once it is started, they can fight on in defeat. Herd men, followers of a leader, cannot do that, and so it is always the herd men who win battles and the free men who win wars.  You will find that is so, sir.”

I ponder their profound implications and then I remember that Steinbeck was an American and, despite his early, leftist leanings, I see clearly that these words, and indeed, this whole, small tome, is really the voice of the American soul.  The soul of land of the free and home of the brave, where independence is something to be celebrated with rockets’ red glare every 4th of July, intended to give succor to those upon whose own beloved soil then trod the jack-booted minions of evil.

I can’t help but see the words on the old, musty pages of this book as having a message for the current “Leader” in the White House.  Whether or not he and his Chicago political machine are yet aware of it, President Obama’s near-bloodless conquering of a free and peace-loving people has come at a price.  And in the same way as the people in Steinbeck’s fictional town came to terms with the reality of their situation, so, too, will the American soul come to terms with the forced labor that has been thrust upon Her.  The truth of things will inevitably find their way to freedom, and the free men and women of America will fight in their defeat to win the war against the progressive liberals, Democrats, and Republicans who now feel they are the conquerers.

Obama’s Flowery Phrases In Egypt Disguise More U.S. Debt

By

Like many Americans, I was busy working hard to earn my daily bread while President Obama addressed the world from Egypt.  But unlike many Americans, I do not rely on the mainstream media to give me a politically-convenient sound bite or two in order that I may deceive myself that I’m on top of what’s going on in the world.  Instead, I have read the transcript of his speech – several times now – and while soaring rhetoric is always nice, and while addressing the diverse factions in the Middle East is rather akin to walking a tightrope without a net, I cannot throw myself into the camp claiming the President did a good job of it.

Indeed, I find his speech troubling on many levels.  On the surface, it is a pretty bouquet of pandering – “(peace be upon them)”.  While one must never be outright rude to one’s hosts, I find the President was yet again too quick to apologize for America and the West: 

“…tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” 

“Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice … events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

“9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.”

“…in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. “

In the same manner as the debate over interrogation techniques required context, so, too must the actions of the United States and any other country also be viewed and understood in context.  And frankly, while no country is perfect, since her inception it is America who has been the most giving and forgiving and I see no need for apologies to those in the Middle East.  For the President did get one thing right:  Islamic extremists have killed more Muslims than anyone else.

The other troubling aspect to Obama’s speech comes when you understand that an America who is now so broke it cannot even pay interest on its current-yet-still-increasing debt is also being set on a course to fund various Middle East initiatives.  He promised $1.5 billion each year for 5 years to Pakistan, $2.8 billion to Afghanistan; an expansion of exchange programs and increased scholarships; investments in on-line learning and a “new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.”  He spoke of a “new fund” in support of “technological development in Muslim-majority countries” and opening “centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia”, complete with the appointment of “new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.”  He committed the United States to a “new global effort” to eradicate polio and expanding “partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.”

 Warm and fuzzy and feels good but, like so many of Obama’s ideas that use the government to duplicate what already exists within the private sector, exactly how will we fund all of this?  Along with many others, I am still reeling from the unprecedented  lawlessness of the dismissal of legitimate bond holder claims in favor of the UAW in the Chryler and GM bankruptcies (unprecedented unless you’re a Chicago politician, of course).  It’s old news now that Obama promised “no new taxes” yet continues to dessimate the middle and lower classes through socialistic tactics that only serve to redistribute radical progressives’ perceptions of “wealth” to those to whom he is politically in debt.  In much the same manner as Sonia Sotomayor practices “identity advocacy”, Obama practices “identity politics”.  I can’t help but wonder if the inspiration for this particular line in his speech came to him while gazing adoringly into his mirror, for his own words provide us with perhaps the best description of his administration to date:

“…there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.”