With an apparent deal in the works, the United States Senate is about to offer America a Christmas snow job that will initiate a blizzard of bureaucracies, mandates, taxes, fees, Medicare cuts and state budget busting regulations that will turn American healthcare it into a Soviet style government health management process.
With over a hundred new panels, boards, agencies, commissions, divisions and government entities, the Senate version of Obamacare assures the hiring of a hundred thousand new government employees, all of who will be managing your health————or at least how and when you can get health care.
All of this promises to increase the national debt, degrade the quality of care, create a shortage medical professionals and caregivers, increase premiums, tax businesses, grow the size of the federal deficit, cut Medicare to senior citizens, initiate unfunded mandates that will prove to budget busters for states, and place government bureaucrats between doctors and their patients. And let us not forget another small thing———– it’s also not constitutional.
Contrary to President Obama’s promise for transparency and a process that will hammer together a healthcare reform bill that we will see take place on C-Span, both the House and Senate reform bills were pieced together behind closed doors and with the use of more deal making and arm twisting than you saw take place in an entire season of The Sopranos. Democrat lawmakers were bribed with taxpayer dollars as some had entire sections of the of the over 2,000 page bill written strictly for the purpose of providing certain liberal lawmakers with hundreds of millions of dollars in return for their vote.
Now, without any transparency and without posting the final bill online for the promised 72 hours of public scrutiny, Harry “The Pimp” Reid wants to rush a vote on heathscare reform before Santa shimmies down his first chimney.
This Christmas , Democrats are simply leaving a lump of coal in your stocking and calling it gold.
Well it’s time to pull the wool off your eyes America——————Senate shysters are about to steal more than your Christmas. They’re getting ready to bum rush Santa, shoot his reindeer, and hijack his sleigh. Then, they plan on going home for the holidays.
Today the Obama Administration makes it official. Our democracy is an endangered form of governance.
Today the Environmental Protection Agency officially declares greenhouse gas emissions to be hazardous to our health. The announcement is not exactly a disputed revelation. What is disputed is the degree to which greenhouse gasses may be unhealthy to us and our environment.
Recent disclosures have shown that political lobbyists have influenced the slanting of scientific studies in an attempt to turn hypothetical extremes of global warming into mass hysteria. The attempts to exaggerate scientific results has set both science and the “sky is falling” radical left, back by leaps and bounds and most importantly blemished the reputation of the scientific community. It has also made many skeptical of the real reason behind the radical agenda for such things as a cap-and-trade bill that would amount to a tax on the air that we breathe and the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Many skeptics see the whole exaggeration and attempts at generating hysteria over manmade global warming effects, as simply a way of gaining more control over our finances and lives.
At the same time, skeptics are not rushing out to pump greenhouse gas emissions into their homes. They realize that sound environmental policies, which lead to logical scientific advances and practical applications, are desired. But they must be rational ones that do not abuse science and are not used as excuses for controlling us and taking rights away from us.
For those of us who understand this, the announcement by the EPA concerning greenhouse gas emissions is not a sincere attempt at sound environmental policy. It is a power grab that will take our rights and finances away. By officially declaring GHG emissions dangerous to our health and using the endangered species act to combat it, is a technical measure that triggers the EPA’s ability to act without congressional approval. That means that the Environmental Protection Agency will now be able to freely enact policies and taxes as they wish.
This paves the way for the EPA to go ahead with suggestions they made early this year which would charge farmers fees for each head of cattle or pigs on their farm all because their such farm animal seemingly produce gassy emissions (farts) that are said to produce lethal lethal doses of CO2 which trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere.
But the free reign of the EPA does not stop there. The technical declaration that they establish will enable them to dictate and mandate costly regulations and procedures that can amount to taxes and fees that will help to put businesses and industries out of business and force families into situations where they can be forced out of their homes or taxed into poverty.
It has been almost six months since the House approved the cap-and-trade initiative, by a paper thin margin. The Administration and EPA bureaucrats were quite pleased with this. However the Senate has failed to take up the measure and it looks like they may not do so anytime soon. Which is why the impatient EPA cleared the way to do as they please without any congressional action.
Just as is the case with President Obama’s great appreciation for creating czars, who are unelected officials that remain unaccountable for the federal policies they set, the President has now made it possible for an entire federal agency to do the same.
The Administrations decision to move ahead with the use of the endangerment act in regards to curbing CO2 emikssions in order to allow the EPA to independently set and enforce regulations, is seen as a sign as President Obama’s willingness to reach international environmental agreements without congressional consent. This decision to launch a new EPA dictatorship and the signal it sends, coincidentally comes just as 1,200 limos and 140 private jets gather in Copenhagen to discuss the environment while leaving a larger carbon footprint and release more GHG than most Americans families do in an entire year. Ironically, these fuel consuming environmental hypocrites believe they can save the world by urging the United States to sign on to radical environmental standards that we are not yet prepared to meet without crippling the American economy. In the meantime, nations like India and China, the world’s most egregious polluters, continue to forge ahead unabated and unaffected by environmental regulations. This allows them to continue growing their economies as they produce goods at a far lower rate than the United States which continues to see its economy shrink.
Perhaps the most important message that the Obama Administration and the one world union leaders in Copenhagen are really sending us today is that global warming is probably the least of our worries. They are proving that our we should actually fear government the most.
Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus admitted to sending a nomination for his girlfriend and former staffer, Melodee Hanes to President Obama for the job of US Attorney for Montana. The admission came only after a news outlet that that covers events involving the US Department of Justice, discovered the relationship between Baucus, Hanes, and her nomination. Were it not for the discovery by a third party, Senator Baucus would not have admitted to anything. Hanes was not ultimately selected for the job by President Obama and since Hanes did not get the position, it is not an issue. However, what is at issue is the integrity of another powerful Democrat. Any politician who is sincere and above reproach, would recuse themselves from making such a nomination, with the understanding that even if their girlfriend was the most qualified person for the job, the romantic involvement would not, given the circumstances, provide the greatest sense of confidence in the nomination. Patronage is nothing new and this incident is not necessarily a scandal, especially compared with the improprieties of other Democrat leaders like Charlie Rangel, but it does show that Max Baucus is just as much a part of the problem in Washington as the rest of them.
Mike Huckabee
In a story that ended this past week and began the week before that, the former Republican Governor from Arkansas and GOP presidential hopeful who turned into a Fox News Channel T.V. show host, lost any chance of aspiring to the presidency of the United States anytime soon. As governor Huckabee pardoned and commuted the sentences of more criminals than all of his three predecessors put together, a few of those whose sentences were expedited by him were found to have committed violent rapes after being freed early. The issue was a mark against him in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But now another criminal offered leniency by Huck, killed 4 police officers in Washington state after his early release from prison. No matter what, Mike Huckabee bears a burden of responsibility for the process that made this possible and no matter what reasoning or excuses that may be made, the early releases of prisoners by Huckabee have expedited the deaths of a combined total of at least five, if not more people, as well as several rapes. Huckabee’s leadership failed those people and their families and failed to protect all of us. At the very least, Huckabee should suffer a dashing of any hope of becoming President of the United States and to call him a loser of the week is an understatement.
The Economy
Nationally, Democrats are boasting the virtues of the fact that we only lost 110,000 jobs in October. The fact that October typically brings large numbers of seasonal holiday hiring’s and that we still lost more than a hundred thousand jobs does not seem to matter to Democrats. They ignore the fact that jobs are still being lost and that the imploding economy held down seasonal hiring. They also ignore the continued hemorrhaging of jobs in areas associated with a sustainable rebound in activity, including trade, transportation, utilities, construction and manufacturing. And while the Administration celebrates there only being 110,000 jobs lost, they fail to embark upon any policies that will truly increase any longterm job growth and establish sustainable economic growth. Instead they promote government spending which produces no return on the dollar and no long term promise. Adding to the liberal celebration over things “not being worse” is the Administration’s proven doctoring of the books, ala Recovery.org which recorded jobs in places that don’t exist, and you have liberal slights of hand that do not include 100,000 jobs deleted from the rolls of those looking for a work because they gave up. In the end what you have is no reason to party or to be optimistic about current economic policies. No matter what, despite White House spawned celebrations that areextolled by a media hypnotized by the President, the economy was a loser this week and if things keep going this way, it will be losing for a long time to come.
WINNERS
General Stanley McChrystal
After a long awaited decision, President Obama has agreed to send the man on the ground and in charge of the war effort in Afghanistan, the forces that he requested to get the job done. McChrystal was smart though. He didn’t just request the troops. Several weeks ago, frustrated by no signs of the President’s commitment to the cause, McChrystal allowed his position on more troops to “leak” out. Word quickly spread that the man who knew what he was doing and what needed to be done in Afghanistan was ready to resign if he didn’t get what he wanted. Such “leaks” do not happen by chance in the covert world of military planning and operations…………..at least not unless of course they are intentionally orchestrated. The events helped put the issue of Afghanistan on the front burner and consequently put in motion the chain of events that spurred the President into action. Shortly after the “leak”, the President met with McChrystal and all of sudden convened meetings with his war council, among the first of his administration. McChrystal did not get the full compliment of forces that he officially requested but something tells me that the good General is a good poker player and that heexaggerated his numbers intentionally so that he would wound up with what he really needed. On this one, it’s McChrystal one, politicians zero.
The Taliban
Although President Obama finally moved on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, which he calls a war of necessity, he provided the main enemy, in the war there, with some crucial information. President Obama told the enemy when they can expect the pressure to be taken off of them by letting them know that the US will begin to pull out of Afghanistan in 18 months. That type of itinerary is not exactly the one that should be shared with those who we are trying to keep in the dark on things. Perhaps that type of public timeline is a good way for a “community organizer” to let his volunteers knows how long they have to get their message out but it is not the way a President should organize a war effort. Of course this timeline could always be moved up. Problem is, in 18 months, if President Obama back pedals on this one, his liberal base, which wants us out as soon as yesterday, will be quite angered an not at a very good time. That will be only 18 months before his reelection effort. Not a good time to have your base of support pissed at you. President Obama would have been best served, and would have best served us, by not letting the Taliban know how long they have to hold on and how long they need to stay hidden under their rocks and in their caves.
Carly Fiorina
The former CEO of Hewlett Packard recently declared that she will be seeking the opportunity to run against California’s US Senator Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer and this past Saturday she made it clear that she is a force to be reckoned with. After winning her own battle against breast cancer, Republicans turned to Fiorina to give their response to the President’s weekly Saturday address. With the ongoing healthcare debate taking center stage, her response was one that resonated loudly, clearly and much more profoundly than anything President Obama has ever said on the issue. In her six and a half minute address, Fiorina highlighted a recent government medical panel’s conclusion to delay mammogram tests by a decade in an attempt to save costs. Quite eloquently and with a tone of calmness and dignity that Barbara Boxer could only find in others when it is pointed out to her, Fiorina explained how the same Preventive Services Task Force that recommended women put of testing, is the same task force that the current healthcare reform bill empowers to influence the coverage and preventive care that government run healthcare will allow for or provide. She also pointed out that the bill specifically authorizes (sec. 4105) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services deny payment for preventive services that this same Preventive Service Task Force recommends against. She adds, “do we really want government bureaucrats dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer”? She also points out that “there is a reason why American women with breast cancer have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government run health care.” All in all, Carly Fiorina delivered one of the most powerful speeches against government run healthcare that this most recent debate has yet seen. (See the video below for yourself) And at the same time, she just gained herself the confidence of a lot of people who are looking for the right person to fire that silver bullet into the career of the nasty, flippant, onoxious, and arrogant, liberal queen of mean, Barbara Boxer.
Yup. Zolitics. You read that right. Zolitics not politics.
It is a new network. The world’s first political entertainment network. For more details about it, check out this previous POLITICS 24/7 post about it. But to see the fist three episodes of Zolitics premier sit-com “Moving Numbers”, just scroll down and enjoy.
Moving Numbers is an original series that deals with a fictional U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. Anyone who has ever been on the inside of campaign can, in one way or another, relate to the events depicted in the series. Those who haven’t been on the inside do get a glimpse at the less technical and often farcical side of campaigns.
Moving Numbers is not rocket science but it is also not meant to be, but for what its worth, it’s an amusing break from the often intensely contentious side of politics that we engage in or are witness to.
Personally, I like both the concept of Zolitics.com and their product and I wish them much success. Hopefully you too will find Zolitics and Moving Numbers an entertaining break from the usual.
Who knew that one of Ted Kennedy’s greatest legacies would have been his dying wish to legalize partisan political power grabs? But such is the case.
As the liberal led majorities in New Jersey’s State Senate and Assembly brace themselves for operating under the leadership of a newly elected Republican Governor, they are desperately trying to insure that they do not lose anymore elected positions than they expect to in the coming years.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman John McKeon, an Essex County Democrat, requires the Governor to temporarily fill U.S. Senate vacancies with a members of the same party as the person whose seat they fill and get rid of the current call for a special election to fill out the full term of any such vacancy.
This type of manipulation of the democratic process is much like that which Ted Kennedy initiated in Massachusetts. While lying on his deathbed, he penned a letter asking the state legislature to change existing laws which called fall vacancies in the United States Senate to be filled by the winner of a special election. In its place, Kennedy wanted the Governor to be able to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. The funny thing is that this was how vacancies use to be filled. But several years back, Massachusetts had a Republican Governor——-Mitt Romney. Back then, in 2004, it was feared that if Massachusetts Senator John Kerrey was elected President, Governor Romney would have appointed his replacement to his senate seat and it probably would not have been with a Democrat. So Kennedy asked the legislature to make sure that such a thing could not happen. He asked that the law be changed so that the vacancy was filled by a special election.
Fast forward 5 years and as Kennedy lay dying, since the new Governor of Massachusetts was a Democrat, like him, he asked that Massachusetts change the law back to what he originally opposed. This enabled liberal Governor Deval Patrick to appoint Kennedy’s replacement rather than risk losing the seat in a special election.
The episode was an example of political insincerity and it hit all time heights of hypocrisy. It was also a despicably low way for Ted Kennedy to end his life and career. But like everything else Ted Kennedy did, it influenced unscrupulous liberals to continue his legacy and go out of their way to manipulate the democratic process.
New Jersey Assemblyman McKeon’s bill is a shameful attempt to do the same that Kennedy did. Such attempts to change the process in New Jersey were not attempted when Governor Jon Corzine appointed Democrat Bob Menendez to fill his own vacated seat in the United States Senate. However, now that a Republican has the opportunity to yield the same power that they once had, they want the rules changed. But beyond that is the absolutely ridiculous, and totally blatant nature of just how partisan Democrats are willing to go. McKeon actually stresses that the seat must be filled by someone of the same party as the person whom they replace. That is unheard of. To actually try to legislate away any hope of nonpartisan politics is a dreadfully obnoxious attempt to block any opportunity for decency to play a role in politics. The proposed legislation actually makes it clear that McKeon and his cohorts believe party is more important than ability.
The push for such an embarrassingly partisan power grab does raise questions though.
Next month, five term liberal Senator Frank Lautenberg will turn 86 years old.
The man is already brain dead. He has been, even before he retired in 2000 and was illegally thrown back on the ballot in 2002 when Democrats were losing Bob Torricelli’s senate seat to Republican Doug Forrester. But since then, Lautenberg has truly been a non-entity. All of his activity takes place on press releases issued by his very large senate staff. Other than that, when Frank was running for reelection last year, he needed to be reminded of who he was and after having the drool wiped from his chin, reminded where he was.
Currently I believe both he and West Virginia’s Robert Byrd are propped up by leaning them against one another in the Senate chambers for appearances. But other than that they are useless. They are simply 2 more numbers helping Harry Reid, the Democrat senate majority leader, to maintain majority status and control.
Now until someone places a mirror under Lautenberg’s nose and confirms my assessment, Lautenberg is suppose to be 91 year’s old when his fifth term expires in 2015. That is unless, of course, it is proven that Lautenberg has actually expired before his term.
Perhaps this is why New Jersey Democrats want to change the rules. Could they themselves be realizing that they might not be able to prop up the comatose Senator for much longer? And could it be they fear that when the gig is up, Republican Governor Chris Christie could replace Lautenberg with a Republican who is actually breathing? My guess is that the answer is yes. But add to that the fact that things are not looking good for Democrats as they begin to lose more than they win. In this past November’s elections, they lost far more than they won. They lost County Executives, Governors, state legislative seats, Attorney Generals and as host of other local county, and statewide elected offices and all indications are that the trend is growing.
So Democrats are scared. They should be. But that is no excuse to manipulate the process. Democrats need to understand that their power should lie in superior leadership and ideas. It should lie in policies that are helping, not hurting people.
Apparently they realize that they and their policies are not superior. In fact, as time progresses, more and more people are once again realizing that Democrats are not good leaders and that their ideas and policies are inferior, not superior. That is why they losing their hold on power.. That is why they are all trying to practice Ted Kennedy’s deathbed policy that puts politics ahead of policy and politicians above the people.
In September of , 2001 President George W. Bush stated “This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing.” He spoke those words regarding Afghanistan and terrorists.
I found President Obama’s address to the nation regarding the future of our effort in Afghanistan to sound very Bush-like.
President Obama evoked the images of 9/11 to point out the need for our continued efforts in Afghanistan, although he tried to criticize the previous administration, he remained true to the withdrawal dates in Iraq that President Bush set, he spoke of the world’s duty to join us in our efforts and he reaffirmed the need to achieve our goals. All were that which were stressed by President George W. Bush.
What I found ironic was President Obama’s call for unity and the need to stand “behind a common purpose” as we pass through what he called a “time of great turbulence”. I also found great enjoyment in his closing statements that declared our being right as being our might and the need for our continued efforts to create “a world that is more secure”. Statements such as these, when made by former President Bush, received ridicule and were consider the excesses of bravado coming from a shoot ‘em first, ask questions later Texan. It will be interesting to see how the left responds to these type of remarks coming from President Obama.
I must admit that I do agree with President Obama’s assessment and his admission that the War in Afghanistan must be won and that we must have a clear mission and clear definition of what victory in Afghanistan is. I also agree with President Obama’s long awaited determination for a troop surge in Afghanistan to help achieve the needed victory that we must achieve. But what I am disturbed by is President Obama’s hypocrisy. Although the main topic of his recent address was regarding Afghanistan, he consistently denounced everything and opposed everything President Bush did in Iraq. He states that he always opposed that war and even called it a dumb one. Yet President Obama now talks about our need to make the world secure and is willing to throw American troops behind that drive for security. But what of that same need when it came to Iraq? In his own book, then Senator Obama made it clear that he believed Saddam Hussein sought nuclear weapons and had biological weapons.
For most people, it was understood that in the hands of Saddam Hussein, such weaponry posed too high a security risk. Many also understood that Saddam Hussein was in defiance of both United Nations resolutions and the longstanding ceasefire agreement between the US and Iraq after the first Gulf War. But Barrack Obama did not. Despite his admitted beliefs regarding Hussein’s intentions and capabilities, he contends that there was no need to insure security in the world in the case of Iraq and what’s more is, Barrack Obama certainly did not ask for the type of unity that he is seeking from all Americans now.
Yet despite the President’s opposition to the Iraq War, as both a Senator and now as President, he repeatedly admitted to a need for us to do all that we could to accomplish the mission in Iraq. What mission? The mission that he said is dumb?
President Obama spoke well in his national address on Afghanistan but he also spoke out of both sides of his mouth. While he opposed a troop surge in Iraq he wants a troop surge in Afghanistan. While he stated that he believed our effort in Iraq distracted from Afghanistan, President Obama remains committed to the timeline that President Bush laid out in Iraq
once we defeated the insurgent element that existed there.
Now in Afghanistan, President Obama is calling for the same things that President Bush often called for. He called for more troops. He called for unity and he called for our need to insure a world that is more secure.
Well, it’s about time.
President Obama made excuses for his taking much longer than necessary to finally approve the increased number of troops that he was asked for months ago. But all they are is excuses. He never should have hesitated. But the bottom line for me is that President Obama stepped up and moved towards achieving victory in Afghanistan. In doing so, he defied his base and it was for that reason that he addressed comparisons which some make between Afghanistan and Viet Nam. The President assured all that we face in Afghanistan is unlike Viet Nam and that our mission there is much more defined than it was in Viet Nam.
For sure, there will be those on the left who will not be happy with President Obama’s decision tonight. Two years ago, Barack Obama was standing in agreement with those people. However, now that he is President Barack Obama, he sees the national security needs and understands the threats that we face and from where they come from. That is why President Obama is calling for more troops in Afghanistan. It is why he admits to our need to provide security in the world. It is why he is calling for “unity” during turbulent times.
I will heed our President‘s call. I will unite behind his effort to provide a “a more secure world” which is something that he refused to do before he was President and bore that burden of.
I have never been a big fan of Mike Huckabee. He is a well spoken man who can appeal to ones logic and presents a homespun, commonsense message that makes you tend to agree with him. But a look at his ten years as Governor of Arkansas shows that the former preacher doesn’t always practice what he preaches when it comes to the practical application of government. A further looks leads me to conclude that this former Southern Baptist Minister cannot be trusted to effectively separate church from state.
I sense that in at least one aspect, the former Governor’s religious beliefs have been applied to governmental decisions in a way that may have allowed him to personally practice and adhere to his personal religious faith but to the detriment of government’s responsibility to public safety. This conclusion is not reached in haste. It is one that is not based solely on Mike Huckabee’s commutation of Maurice Clemmons, who recently killed 4 police officers in an ambush that took place in Washington state near Tacoma.
Huckabee has a long history of taking the Christian creed of hate the sin, love the sinner and applied too much forgiveness for the sinner when it comes to blind justice and government responsibility. Prior to today, the most prominent example of this existed in a case that came before the Governor about a decade ago.
Back in 1999, in a letter to then Governor Huckabee, a rape victim made clear her position regarding, Wayne Dumond, a man who was convicted of raping her.
She wrote;
“I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time.”
Her prediction of events over the course of time came to fruition in Missouri, after Huckabee granted an early release from prison to Wayne Dumond. Thanks to Governor Huckabee’s compassionate concerns, 23-year-old Sara Andrasek of Platte County Missouri was raped and murdered. It was not until Dumond was arrested for the rape and murder by suffocation of another woman, 39 year old Carol Sue Shields, that it was discovered that he was also the rapist and murderer of Sara Andrasek. That was realized only one day before Dumond was arrested for the murder of Carol Shields…….one day too late for Sara Andrasek.
Mike Huckabee tried to explain away his decision which led to Dumond’s being freed. He claimed that he did not have any indication that would have led anyone to believe that Dumond was a continued threat to society. He even tried to deny that any letters from any of those who were raped but not killed by Dumond, were ever sent to the Governor’s office or the parole board.
This was just one prominent case that existed prior to the November massacre of the four policemen that Maurice Clemmons carried out after Governor Huckabee commuted his sentence.
In the 10 years that Huckabee served as Governor, he issued 1,000 commutations and pardons. This was a total that exceeded the total number of pardons and commutations that all three of his predecessors granted. I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is soft on crime or that he means to be soft on crime, but he is personally torn between practicing his faith and carrying out the duties of government.
A Minister’s job may be saving souls but a Governor’s responsibility is to protect lives and help make our lives better. In the case of Huckabee’s commutations and paroles, he did neither and it takes a great deal of personal restraint for me to not state that the former Governor bears a certain amount of responsibility for the rapes and deaths of women and now the massacre of 4 policemen. To make such a claim may not be fair but life is not always fair. The fact is that had Mike Huckabee not been so quick to make clear that he hates the sins but loves the sinners, a few sinners may not have had the opportunity to kill and rape and continue in the life of crime that his inordinate number of commutations and parole recommendations afforded criminals.
To be sure, Huckabee did not set any of these men free. This is a point the he makes in his own defense. It is true but it is not the full story and Huckabee must be made to understand that he made it possible for these men to be considered for parole and he allowed them to be released earlier than original sentences for their original crimes called for. So although it is true Huckabee did not set violent criminals free, he did expedite their release.
For that, Mike Huckabee indirectly assisted in causing the pain, suffering, violation and deaths of way too many. The former Governor may try to make excuses and claim that he did not have proper background information on the decisions he made. He could try to claim that no one could have known what these men would have done. That may be so, but what we do know is that had Wayne Dumond and Maurice Clemmons been serving their full prison sentences, they would not have victimized more people and their victims would not be dead. What we do know is that had Mike Huckabee not intervened, lives would have been spared.
Mike Huckabee can make excuses but there comes a point in time when one must just admit they are wrong and that they failed us. For Mike Huckabee, now that there exists more victims of his decisions than excuses for those decisions, that time is now.
He needs to admit to his mistakes and to try to live with himself knowing that as Governor of Arkansas, his decisions led to the deaths of many and the victimization of many more from coast to coast.
There are those who claim that the reduction of freedom is not the foundation of the Obama Administration. As one who believes that Obama and his allies are indeed basing their agenda on the destruction of freedom, I think it is important to examine the concept of freedom. Clearly what it means to be free is not understood the same by all parties or else there would be universal agreement on opposing Obama’s agenda.
In truth, freedom is an illusive concept. Or at least it’s relationship to government makes it one. At its heart freedom is anarchy. It is the state of being completely and utterly free to do as you please. In a society such absolute freedom does not work as some would take actions that harm others. Absolute freedom and anarchy was certainly not what the framers of our nation had in mind when they created the Constitution that set limits both on the people and on the government.
In our society the word freedom is used when perhaps the word liberty would be better. By it we mean that power comes from the people who give some of their power to government to act as their agent for the common protection of everyone’s liberty. Government was created to ensure that each person was protected in his or her rights to the fullest possible extent – limiting freedom only to the degree necessary to protect the life, liberty and property of all. We are not free to take anything we want because that would infringe on the rights of those from whom we would take it. We are not free to kill those we dislike because that would infringe on the lives of those we would kill. We are not free to censor opinions we oppose as that would infringe on the liberty of those we sought to silence.
Our Constitution is, as Obama correctly stated, a document of negative powers. It states what government is limited to doing, reserving all else for the States or the people in their private lives. It seeks to empower government only to the minimum extent necessary to protect life, liberty and property. In that way, we remain free.
Over time those limitations have been eroded. Today a citizen is not free in his own home. The government has assumed the mantle of protector, nurturer, equalizer and enforcer. Where once you were free to do as you pleased almost without limit so long as you did not directly harm someone else, today we are bound by countless laws dictating everything from what kind of outlet you can have in your bathroom to how much water you toilet tank can hold.
Any law can be justified. Any problem can be solved on paper by passing a law, yet one look at our society will show that attempting to curtail liberty in an effort to reshape society is a failure. Banning a thing does not eliminate it. Regulating a thing does not eliminate malfeasance. All these thousands of laws based not on protecting our lives, liberty and property but rather on engineering some alternate vision of society do little more than strip the average citizen of the freedom to live their own lives. They obey these laws that they don’t need and lose their freedom as a consequence while those who carry out abuse continue to do so. In most cases, these criminals were already breaking an existing law long before we wrote a hundred more.
This brings us back to this administration. President Obama and his allies have a different view of the role of government than its original purpose. They see government as an appropriate vehicle to re-engineer society. They do not see government as existing to protect life, liberty and property but rather to regulate the way in which society operates. Their view is, to put it simply, the exact opposite of what the framers attempted to create with the Constitution.
If government seeks to raise one person’s standard of living by taking from another, the government has not preserved the freedom of the person it robbed. To make the argument that it isn’t robbery because the government did it and it is elected by the people is basically to buy into the excuse of Richard Nixon that “if the President does it, that means it isn’t illegal”. Yes the people elect the government, but the government is bound by the Constitution. Fostering economic equality is not one of the enumerated powers. Therefore it is, by the tenth amendment, reserved to the States or the people in their private lives.
If we look at the policies of this administration, we see their opposite view of the role of government underlying them all. Government control of banking, suspension of investor rights in the takeover of two auto manufacturers, dictating the types of light bulbs you may use in your own home, seizure of your private medical information and the list goes on and on. Yes, every action done by this administration can be justified with arguments on how those actions will potentially save money or improve the environment or increase efficiency. None of those things, however, is an enumerated power granted to the government by the people. Therefore all of those things are being done through the usurpation of power at the expense of personal and collective freedom.
We should pause to remember that American slaves had free housing, free food, free heat in the winter, free medical care and were cared for in their old age when they could no longer work. Those things are no substitute for freedom and thousands risked their lives and gave up all those things in an attempt to be free even if that meant starvation, sickness and homelessness. What this administration is doing today is turning back the clock and making us all slaves not of a few plantation owners, but of government itself. We lose the fruits of our labor to our government master and in return we get the barest of our necessities meted out in equal proportion. That isn’t freedom.
Indiana Congressman James Bopp , Jr. recently circulated a draft resolution for the Republican National Committee to implement a practicew that would essentially vet the candidates that the party fields for elected office as nominees whom they fund and endorse. The resolution would prohibit the RNC from endorsing or contributing financial resources to the campaigns of any candidate who oppose three or more of ten planks in the party platform.
The premise behind the draft resolution is one that I tend to support. But such a practice as that which is promoted by the effort would undoubtedly be followed by attempts from the left to paint the GOP as exclusive and intolerant, a party without a “big tent” and that shuns those who they do not agree with.
The problem is that the opposition will make this accusation no matter what and it is my opinion that the propaganda of the loyal opposition should not play a role in our commitment to the conservative principles which are the backbone of our Party and the source of security and prosperity for our nation. The attempt to create, what may be a litmus test, is something that, in the case of a political organization, could actually be quite useful when it comes to insuring that all its participants are working towards the same goals.
Many of us lay claim to one party or the other, not for the sake of the party name, but because, for us, it represents a set of core values that amount to an ideological approach to all matters. We are Republicans or Democrats, not because of its organizational membership but rather for the principles it represents and our belief that those principles need to be applied to the practical application of government.
Congressman Bopp puts it this way;
“All we’re requiring is that somebody agree with us most of the time,”
The point is legitimate. Especially from the standpoint of the RepublicanParty as a national entity which expends its resources on candidates at all levels, from Governor’s, to congressmen and senators. From a national point, does it make sense to endorse and finance the candidacy of an individual who claims to be a Republican but actually maintains an agenda that opposes the approach to governance and policies that the Republican National Committee is working toward?
The Bopp resolution has merit. It does not prohibit state or local Republican parties from endorsing and financing the candidacy of any Republican that they choose. But it does restrict the national party from aiding candidates who are counterproductive to our goals. This type of party policy would have come in quite handy in a case like New Yorks 23rd Congeressional District, where a group of Republican County chairmen tapped Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to be the Republican nominee for Congress. This local level decision committed the Nationa Party to dedicate a hefty sum of money and resources to her campaign. But as it turned it, Scozzafava shared very little in common with the national Republican agenda. As the differences between her and the Party she claims to a member of beacame more and more clear, Republican voters began to flee from Scozzafava’s candidacy. many felt that there was no need to support a liberal oriented candidate when another one was honest enough to run under the banner of the more liberal oriented Party.
Before all was said and done, Scozzafava withdrew from the race only three day before Election Day. In the meantime, the RNC spent a few hundred thousand dollars on the failed candidacy of someone who mine as well have been a Democrat.
Some argue that such “lists” as the one which outlines 10 specific general principles that we as Republicans hold true is trivial. They feel it is ridiculous and stands in the way of freewill and freethinking. Some have stated that such a “list” this is the “dumbest idea they ever heard” .
I contend that one can try to trivialize this attempt as a “ stupid llist” but those who do, also run the risk of having that same flippant attitude applied to any documentation of what one believes in. One can try describe The Ten Commandments as a mere ”checklist of talking points and issues” and deemed as “the dumbest” Christian idea they “have heard in (their) lifetime“. One could also call those who believe in abiding by the Ten Commandments as part of a “fringe” group” but such interpretations would be would be ignorant and inappropriate.
Furthermore; why can an individual organization not establish its own operational guidelines and stipulate its stated goals and beliefs, especially of the governing rules of that organization allows a democratic vote to adopt such guidelines and reiterate what it stands for? Who is anyone to say that such actions are inappropriate? As for freewill, one is free to not particpaqte in any group or organization that does not share their views.
So I have no problem with the intent of the resolution. If there is enough support and if it is not somehow blocked by RNC Chairman Michael Steele, it could be voted on at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in January. My only suggestion would be to change some of the language. As much a devoted fan of one of the greatest contemporary Presidents , I would not base this resolution on one man only. As it existsnow the resolution is called the “RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates“. I am not sure if that is the wisest way to go to about this. But I will also admit this. I would not want to be the one who goes on record as refusing to use the name of Ronald Reagan.
How far this resolution will go is not yet known. A spokesperson fot the RNC stated
”The deadline for submitting Resolutions for the RNC Winter Meeting is more than 30 days away. At this point, we do not know what resolutions will be submitted nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be,”.
Below, you will find a poll asking your opinion on the issue and below that is the actual resolution and a likst of the National Committee Members who have so far sihnmed on to it. Review it and record your support or opposition to the reolution in our poll
The “Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” follows:
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and
WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN
Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR
I consistently contend that liberals are hypocrites and that the contemporary, predominantly liberal, Democrat Party, possesses a hypocrisy based ideology.
Hypocrisy is so ingrained in liberalism that it seeps into everything from the way they do business to the policies they promote and the double standards they operate under.
For example. A $400 million dollar deficit after 8 years of President G.W. Bush drew repeated public denunciations by the left and cries of irresponsibility (which is actually true) but an epic $1.85 trillion deficit in 10 months under President Obama is seen as a good thing by liberals now.
Liberals claimed that Clarence Thomas was unfit for the Supreme Court because a comment he made about pubic hair on a can of coke inspired one Anita Hill to accuse him of sexual harassment. But according to these same liberals, the dozens of sexual harassment charges against President B.J Clinton, including those settled out of court, had no bearing on how fit he was to be Commander-and-Chief.
The list is endless, but recently I was struck by a group of liberal, civilian, conscientious objectors who oppose our national security interests and the war against the enemies confronting us.
WarTaxBoycott.org proudly promotes their “2009 War Tax Boycott” and they even ask you to participate in their 2010 War Tax Boycott. I was floored by the message this site offered. What shocked me was not their total refusal to understand why we are at war, or their unwillingness to accept the fact that what we are in the middle of is borne out of necessity (as President Obama admits). No. What made my eyes pop out was the utterly ridiculous level of hypocrisy they confirmed.
Here is some of what the site explained:
“$141,696 redirected from war to projects that serve humanity!
Half the signers to the 2009 War Tax Boycott refused to pay federal income taxes to the IRS and are giving the money to Direct Aid Iraq, Common Ground Health Clinic, or hundreds of other projects of their choice.”
Here’s the kicker…………….
“Other signers have chosen to reduce their income so that none of their money will go to war — with the added benefit of less consumerism.”
I was astonished by the liberal admission of the fact that less income in the pockets of individuals results in “less consumerism”.
Now in the case of this Brooklyn based pit of hypocrisy, they see less consumerism as a good thing because the reduced purchase power and lack of profit in America, in their small, warped minds, is an added sign of protest against our national security. However; the bottom line is that these liberals clearly connect less money in the pockets of taxpayers with less consumerism. So another words if one were to be allowed to keep more of the money they earned, they would spend more and their would be more of that much hoped for consumerism.
Is this not the exact same point they argue against when they denounce tax cuts?
In the meantime, while you have a portion of the Democrat Party refusing to pay their taxes because of our defense efforts, you have a leading liberal, Congressman David Obey, demanding that we create a “war tax”.
Are liberals actually this confused or are they really as stupid as they sound and act?
But just to accentuate the undeniability of liberal hypocrisy, I should mention that people like Congressman David Obey and Joe Klein, the liberal, so-called journalist of Time, are currently trying to argue that a “war tax” is patriotic, yet, at the same time, do they call it unpatriotic when liberals refuse to pay any taxes, as demonstrated by the 2009 War Tax Protest group?
The endless hypocrisy of the left is painfully obvious and incredibly obscene. But if you really want to blow a gasket, check out what Joe Klein had to say about Congressman Obey’s war tax. Not only does it add to my point, it also demonstrates the blatant level of political insincerity that liberals possess. Klein’s brief opinion of the war tax reveals the real reason behind it.
It is an attempt, on the part of the left, to exploit the war effort and turn it into a wedge issue to attack Republicans with. And we all know it! After all, do any of us believe that the same government which claims that stimulus dollares are creating jobs in Congressional Districts that do not exist , is actually going to insure us that their war tax goes to the war effort? Absolutely not!
These hypocrites really need to stop the lies and put an end to the games they’re playing.
The truth in this blog may hurt liberals and could lead them to encounter a sense of severe frustration and anger. Other side effects may include a need to deny reality, rewrite history and an inexplicable desire to defend failed policies and socialist programs.
With an apparent deal in the works, the United States Senate is about to offer America a Christmas snow job that will initiate a blizzard of bureaucracies, mandates, taxes, fees, Medicare cuts and state budget busting regulations that will turn American healthcare it into a Soviet style government health management process.
