Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
ARIZONA SHOOTINGS: NOT WASTING OPPORTUNITY FOR RULING CLASS TO ATTACK CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DEMOCRAT USES HORRIFIC ARIZONA MASS MURDERS TO WAGE WAR AGAINST FREE SPEECH. REPUBLICAN, TO ATTACK GUN RIGHTS
Never to let a "good crisis go to waste" (i.e., as an excuse to transfer more power and control to federal politicians and bureaucrats), thehill.com reports (my emphasis) that mere hours since the Arizona mass murders:
"Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that COULD BE PERCEIVED as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."
"Perceived"? "Could be"? And who gets the arbitrary, unbridled power to "perceive" what "could be" threatening? Him? Or, some other politician, bureaucrat, or board of self-annointed and proclaimed free speech experts? Maybe judgment would come down from a newly created, Orwellian, totalitarian, Free Speech Czar. Apparently, phrases, when used in the political context, such as, "war of words", "go on the offensive", "attack ads", and "fighting fire with fire", will result in imprisonment if reported to the thought police.
And notice that this new protection isn't for everybody. Nope, it's only for Rep. Brady's buddies in government's ruling class. Why should they receive preferential treatment over those who pay their salaries, over those who they supposedly represent?
Perhaps Democrat Congressman Brady didn't pay attention during the recent reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor to usher in the 112th Congress, particularly that pesky restriction on government found in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Representative Brady's oath to "support and defend the Constitution", taken just last week, certainly came with a very short expiration date.
Founding Father James Madison had his own version of "not letting a good crisis go to waste", since it has been the norm throughout human history for tyrants to gain power, and for freedom to be lost, in times of "crisis":
"'Crisis' is the rallying cry of the tyrant."
Politicizing a crisis or tragedy has to be one of the slimiest of tactics. Within minutes of the tragedy, progressive liberal democrats like big government economic quack, Paul Krugman, were blaming the Arizona shooting on the Tea Party movement and/or conservatives like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, even though the evidence thus far confirms that not only was the shooter not a conservative or inspired by one, but to the contrary, was clearly a lefty whackjob. A friend of the shooter described him as a "political radical" and as being "quite liberal", and "left wing". It has been revealed by investigators that he was a flag burner who listed as one of his favorite books the progressive bible, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
I'm not in any way assigning blame to anyone other than the shooter himself, including his political views. I do condemn the shameful tactic of the left to highjack any human tragedy in an attempt to enhance their political power.
I wonder if Rep. Brady would "perceive" that President Obama's statement, directed towards Republicans, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", or Chris Matthews (regarding Rush Limbaugh), "at some point somebody is going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come." as threatening. When liberals issue death wishes on conservatives, their progressive friends do not consider this to be threatening.
I also wonder if the left's movie, Death of a President (2006), about assassinating Republican George W. Bush, would be given an exemption. Of course, if being honest, we most assuredly know the answer. Only when a progressive, liberal, Democrat, or socialist invokes "hate speech" is the First Amendment invoked and anyone speaking out in opposition (though not saying the speech should be banned) is demonized for being intolerant, against creativity, overly sensitive and thin-skinned, and against free speech and the First Amendment.
"JUST DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, PLEASE, NOW!"
Not surprisingly, it's not just the First Amendment rights that are under attack. The Second Amendment is also under assault, stemming from the ruling class principle to "do something", do anything, even if it isn't right (or stomps on our rights). Republican New York Congressman Peter King, in response to the Arizona shootings, is proposing preferential treatment for Congress and other federal officials, making it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of the privileged individuals. Disregarding the question as to why congressmen should receive unequal protection under the law, it should be noted that the problem supposedly being addressed, the recent Arizona mass murders, would not have been prevented by such a law for two simple reasons:
- Mass murdering madmen don't obey gun laws, and
- Mass murdering madmen don't carry measuring tape to measure how far they are from their target (MMM: "I'm withing 999 feet. Whew! That was close. Shoot away!")
Using such an unfathomable tragedy, like the Arizona shootings, to further one's unconstitutional political agenda, in the name of justifying their societal position of importance by "doing something", is among the lowest possible level of detestable human conduct, especially when that agenda includes an assault against our constitutional rights. A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit.
Less Government = More Freedom
Saturday, January 8, 2011
WSJ: OBAMA'S REALITY DEFICIT
If you believe that a new entitlement saves money, you'll believe anything.
Showing the deception (well, outright lies) of the outlandish claims from the lefty supporters of ObamaCare:
"Of all the claims deployed in favor of ObamaCare, and there are many, the most preposterous is that a new open-ended entitlement will somehow reduce the budget deficit. Insure 32 million more people, and save money too! The even more remarkable spectacle is that Washington seems to be taking this claim seriously in advance of the House's repeal vote next week. Some things in politics you just can't make up."Read the rest from The Wall Street Journal
Less Government = More Freedom
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
STRANGULATION BY REGULATION
In our fight to restore lost liberty, which can only be derived through limited, constitutional government as designed by our Founding Fathers, much more focus, energy, and relentlessness must be targeted to what has become enemy #1; never-ending "regulations", imposed by unelected, unaccountable, tenured (see: "can't get rid of"), and power-hungry bureaucrats.
More tyranny (a carefully chosen word defined as: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority) is being forced upon the American citizenry in the name of the obscure, innocent, harmless, vanilla tasting, even necessary sounding word "regulation" than any other, and more so now than at any other time in our nation's history.
Thousands and thousands of pages of new laws (oops, I mean "regulations", which sounds so much more pleasing) are unconstitutionally being mandated for the purposes of giving Washington, D.C., bureaucrats complete control over every single area of our lives. Notice how these new millions of words of federal "regulations", whether in the tax code, health care, financial services, education, transportation, food, the environment, toilets, light bulbs, etc., etc. (in other words, everything), are never sold to us as "laws", "mandates", "controls", or "rules". Naively and ignorantly, we accept all "regulations" (notice also that politicians refer to new laws as "bills". It sounds so much more palatable.) as well-intended, needed guidelines put into place by our intelligent, highly-trained, and Ivy league educated leaders who love us and will take care of us in the name of safety, security, and fairness. Don't think these "regulations" are laws? Just try violating one of them, even if innocently, and unless you're well-connected to a powerful politician or bureaucrat, just see what happens. No law abiding citizen can possibly live in freedom without unknowingly breaking at least one, and more than likely much more, of their thousands of laws. Completely amazing is that in the Federalist Papers, written in 1788 (#62, written by James Madison), the Founders, in their inspired wisdom, warned of such a condition:
"...if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."
Isn't this where we stand today, where new, multi-thousand page laws like ObamaCare are passed without even being read or understood? As Marxist Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi put it, in a rare show of candor, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". One of the reasons investors, businesses, and banks are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, while earning near 0% interest, is because of the uncertainty created by the arbitrary, always changing government regulations. No business can plan, with any degree of confidence, when they're worried about what their government will do to them next. Again, the Founding Fathers got it right the first time:
From Federalist #62:
"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy."
Legendary rocker and freedom-loving patriot, Ted Nugent, appropriately coined the term "Fedzilla" to accurately describe the gargantuan, ever-expanding bureaucracy headquartered in our nation's capital. We have been transformed fro a country, of, by, and for the people, to one ruled by usurping bureaucrats, the freedom-sucking leeches, who believe that any problem can be solved by their "experts" with more and more "regulations".
Even while disregarding the loss of liberty, it has been estimated that it costs us more than $1 trillion per year (out of a $14 trillion economy) just to comply with the plethora of rules, regulations, and red-tape forced on us by the self-proclaimed intellectuals in Washington, D.C. Mammoth regulations punish small businesses, who can't afford to hire the staff necessary to comply with the complex, indecipherable gobbledygook. Also, what's unseen are the untold would-be entrepreneurs and innovators who have been discouraged from even starting a new business because of the daunting task of being micromanaged by their federal masters. A perfect, real-life example of this was explained by Ken Langone who co-founded Home Depot, which employs over 325,000, thirty years ago. Mr. Langone boldly proclaimed in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled, "Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President":
"If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers."
The Founders, when crafting our Constitution, used the phrase, "to regulate commerce" as-in "to make regular" and the Commerce Clause was written specifically to knock down trade barriers "among the several states". It was never intended to give government unlimited power to do anything they desire as long as the activity being regulated could be interpreted as even vaguely being involved in commerce or business, as is the twisted logic used by the Leftists to deceptively claim that ObamaCare, or any other government power grab they're in the mood for (and/or will buy votes and payoff the special interests who support them), is authorized under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. These tyrannical usurpations would make King George III proud and would have caused the Founding Fathers to get out their tar, feathers, and pitchforks many moons ago.
This bastardization of the U.S. Constitution was put on display recently when the "regulators" the EPA bureaucracy created out of thin air (pardon the pun) the power to "regulate" carbon, bypassing the legislative process. President Obama called the rejected Cap-and-Trade (approved in the House, but not in the Senate) legislation just "one way of skinning the cat". The other way is through illegally implementing the same thing through bureaucratic fiat. I think we're the cats.
Coincidentally, over the Christmas weekend, while the public wasn't looking, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a new "regulation", running an end-around congressional approval, that will offer "end-of-life counseling" (death panels) services, a provision that because of public outrage was removed from the ObamaCare legislation. Never mind, even though it wasn't part of the law, they'll just do it anyway. Why even have a Congress? We'll just let the bureaucrats pass the laws.
Also during Christmas week, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) imagined and implemented the power to "regulate" the internet, inventing a non-existent problem that would be solved by "net neutrality". A new Rasmussen poll recently showed that only 21 percent of the public approve of the government regulating the internet. Why do we oppose it by such a huge majority? Because, as the poll indicated, we fear that allowing the Feds to regulate the internet would be used to push a political agenda. It doesn't matter. They're doing it anyway because, after all, big government knows best. "Goodbye" to self-government, and "Hello" to Soviet-style mandates from centralized government.
According to a George Washington University study, the Obama administration issued 16,200 new regulations in 2009 alone. This doesn't include 2010's thousands of pages of new (on top of the old ones which are rarely, if ever repealed) "Fedzilla" regulations, including, ObamaCare's hostile takeover of private health care, and Barney Frank's "financial regulation", which in essence does to our finances what ObamaCare does to our health.
Of course, new unelected, overpaid, authoritarian bureaucrats are secured new lifetime employment, complete with cushy pensions and benefits not available to those who pay them...us gullible taxpayers. The result is more intrusion into our personal lives. This includes the estimated 16,000 IRS goons (agents) to be hired to enforce ObamaCare. Government begats more government, or as Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "the natural tendency is for government to grow". If left unrestrained, this cycle will always continue to snowball. They will not stop unless they are stopped.
This consistent tyrannical usurpation, which attacks our freedom, prosperity, and the ability to "pursue happiness", is under direct attack, and has been for many years (but never like this), by those wishing to rule us in a manner that would make King George III proud yet envious. We must stop playing their game by begging for politicians who will "get things done" (the problem), demanding even more laws, and elect those that will "get things UNDONE" (the solution), dismantling Fedzilla and restoring government to it's proper, constitutional role, doing those things that only government can do (as "enumerated" in Article I, Section 8), and leaving everything else to the "states and the people" (Tenth Amendment).
We are being suffocated, painfully receiving strangulation by regulation. We must vigilantly, powerfully, and tirelessly fight back against the untenable usurpers, looters, violators, and plunderers using any method that is legal, workable, and successful. Who doubts that the Founding Fathers would have gotten out their tar, feathers, and pitchforks many moons ago?
Thomas Jefferson: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Cross-posted on Red County
Less Government = More Freedom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)