25 February 2009

Scary Point #3 from Obama's Address: Energy Fraud

Using China as a model of energy independence.

After he brought out China as a great example of energy independence, I started thinking he was certifiably insane. To wit:

Exhibit 1: China dumps toxic waste right into rivers without pretense and has no compunction about factories putting out any sort of emissions, leaded toys, and poison food. Well, I guess if he's talking about deregulation, I'm for it... but I'd still prefer to see at least a modicum of responsibility.

Exhibit 2: China is generally DIRT POOR. Not hardly a model of prosperity.

Exhibit 3: China is "energy independent?" Maybe because most of them barely have running water and electricity. I prefer refrigeration, air conditioning in the summer, and heat in the winter, thankyouverymuch. And I'd prefer NOT to control our consumption through infanticide.

Exhibit 4: Talking about improving the energy infrastructure and then "making our homes energy-efficient" - how? With poison light bulbs that don't last any longer than traditional, non-toxic ones and provide less quality light?

Hmm... let's move on to the last exhibit, since none of these sound like a "model" so far.

Exhibit 5: OK, maybe this is what he's talking about: Cap & Trade. It's a total scam that enriches the already-wealthy power brokers within the establishment. (*cough*AlGore*cough*GE*cough*) But as far as enriching party men and power players just like Communist China, I think he's hit that nail right on the head.

Scary Point #2 from Obama's Address: People as a Commodity of the State

Problematic Part 1: How many times Obama said things like "I will not allow," "we will not allow," and "not an option."

Problematic Part 2: The Federal government taking responsibility for citizens' welfare and education "from birth..."

Problematic Part 3: "Put our people back to work" and "ways to keep our people healthy"

The phrase "our people" isn't inherently scary, but when it's used in a context of ownership and supervised or "allowed" activity, it is.

I am a person.

I am not a pet, to be "kept healthy."

I am not a commodity, to be "put to work" as another self-important mortal decides.

And MY CHILD is a person.

MY CHILD is neither the PET nor the PROPERTY of the Federal government.

The only interest they should have in my child "from birth" is that he is protected from those who seek to harm him. And that responsibility is first MINE. The only role the government has is as I grant them.

The President didn't exactly come right out and say it, but his perspective claiming direct governmental responsibility for managing its citizens' life paths recurred throughout his speech; and it was all too evident in his choice of words and his dictation of what he will and will not "allow" or allow to be "an option."

That perspective, particularly in a position of power, is a direct threat to my family and my freedom.

We are NOT pets.

Neither are we a commodity to be employed at the government's will or by its good grace.

The government has no authority to direct my life, or anyone else's, in the interest of "our common prosperity."

Scary Point #1 from Obama's Address: Education

"Encouraged" post-secondary education and "dropping out of high school is no longer an option."

This worries me on several fronts. First, "encouraged" from a socialist means "required." That's mandatory education - not just mandated by the States, but mandated at the Federal level.

That's bad, just on principle.

Additionally, that "no longer an option" point constitutes such an egregious violation of:
  1. The idea that we are free to pursue our happiness, however counterproductive or irrational our thoughts may be, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights.
  2. Parental rights. How far will this "not an option" extend? Will I - or any parent - retain the right to "drop my child out" of public education by educating them at home? Sure, Obama paid lip service to parental rights later, but he didn't reconcile that with his grand vision of mandatory education duration and content.
Just a few thoughts... I'm trying to break this down into a series so that I (and the discussion) can focus on specific topics.

24 February 2009

Moveon.org: Tool of Oppression

Wow. Walt Minnick, "the other Representative" from Idaho (meaning: the Representative from not my district, but Idaho's other Congressional district; although I put it in quotes because he's also the only one of four Federal representatives who ran on a Democratic ticket, and I know some people get really bugged by that, LOL...), voted against Obama's fascist Stimulus bill.

Yes, he disagreed with the Democratic Party "leadership" on a bill. (He didn't even disagree with the basic - I believe, flawed - principle behind it, but rather its untargeted implementation.)

How DARE he, right?!?!

Walt Minnick is doing a great job upholding responsible principles in an oppressive, establishment-oriented environment. For two big votes now. That's hard. And it's even harder for someone who happens to have a "(D)" by his name because of the political machine in Washington.

But he doesn't toe The Party Line! Therefore, the hard left has targeted him. I'm not sure how far the machinery ties extend, (although I have a hypothesis), but moveon.org has gone after this good, decent, responsible man simply for not falling in line with the other party zombies.

Exhibit 1: This ad, which has been all over Facebook for DAYS now:

Exhibit 2: This Google sponsored ad in my Gmail account.

It might be hard to read, and I tried to make it a little bigger so you'd be able to read it, but it says the same thing: "Minnick voted no on jobs." But this time, it tells who sponsored it: moveon.org.

Oh, outrage! (I'd say "oh, joy," but I try to avoid sarcasm.) A dishonest, irrational organization is targeting "not-my" representative because he's voted his constituency and his conscience.

Fortunately, everyone I've talked to is thrilled with him. But we need to gear up to support him against the establishment machinery, because he's on moveon.org's radar now.

He's not a Party Man.

He's not a communist.

He's not a group "conservative," either.

He's independently-minded.

He's exactly the type of representative we need in our Capitol.

And moveon.org is the enforcer of thoughtcrime, of party-man socialist conformance - 'free thought be banned.'

(No, I'm not a prude: I would say "damned" in this highly-appropriate instance, but I figured my play on it fits even better.)

23 February 2009

Another Good Read (fixed links)

Club for Growth's Andrew Roth has a fun article up about the new Fox series Lie to Me. I like it, too, and one of the things I appreciate about it is that while it deals with current events, issues, politics, etc., it seems pretty even-handed...

Anyway, here's a snippet:
Do politicians unconsciously nuance their speechs so that they don't outwardly lie, but merely bend the truth to appease their own senses of guilt? If so, can that be detected?
More here...

19 February 2009

This is Interesting

A Trading Floor revolt?

It's about 5 minutes long, but it certainly is interesting to see someone in business openly voice concern about what "our" government is doing... almost as interesting as seeing the reactions of the anchors!

Oh - forgot: h/t Drudge

Update: Finally, an embeddable YouTube video (h/t: Code Monkey):

18 February 2009

Feeling a Little Overwhelmed at the Moment

... but here are a few quick links (first two h/t Drudge):

Future freedom of speech?

Oh, geez - socialism is contagious. Almost like the Plague*, I'd say - spread by parasites and rodents. (OK, that's going to tick someone off, and I'm too busy and tired to care about revising it right now...)

And gall, foreclosing on an Extreme Makeover house...

But on the bright side, I [heart] Bobby Jindal.

*Update: who knew we're actually losing track of plague mice??? LOL! I'm dyin' here...

13 February 2009

Friday the 13th

Nope, no need to flee Freddy.

Congress is the group we need to be worried about.

They just passed a massive "spending" bill, sight-unseen.

Our children's children are going to be paying for this, and we don't even know what "this" IS.

But the lobbyists do.

Broken open-viewing promises, broken promises of honesty and ethical dealings... not that I'm surprised at the politics-as-usual scheming, but I'm still very, very angry about it.

"Wresting the economy out of recession?" No.

Wresting control of the government from the people.

12 February 2009

Look! It's a Spine!!!

Senator Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as Pres. Obama's nominee for Secretary of Commerce. (My first thought was, "what? More tax problems?" But that wasn't it.)

To quote:
...on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. ... We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
Wow. I have to wonder how much of a shock these latest actions were to him, (since it's not like Obama was playing a conservative during the election), but I do appreciate his willingness to resign rather than play the key role in creating and implementing policies that will further undercut the foundation of commerce in this country.

This is getting interesting...

[Update: Source at Yahoo! News.]

10 February 2009

Commie Cowards

The Senate has passed their version of the "stimulus" bill.

Open Letter to Senators and Representatives:

I hold each one of you elitist cowards who voted, "aye," individually accountable to me for the loss of my family's freedoms.

I hold each one of you "aye" votes accountable to me for sabotaging my country's prosperity.

And I hold each of you "ayes" accountable to me for your utter contempt and disregard for the Constitutional restraint of government delivered us by our Founders, replacing it with a fascist corporate oligarchy.

I just thought you should know.

A US Citizen

We Are NOT All Socialists.

Excuse me, Newsweek, but I have to disagree.

I try very hard to remain somewhat level-headed on this blog, but now is not a time for calm.

"We" are NOT all socialists.

In fact, I not only take that as a slur - I take it as a personal threat.


I am not, never have been, and NEVER WILL BE a SOCIALIST. I have too much respect and appreciation for the true government our founders set up!

NEVER will I surrender the innate gifts - freedom and accountability - that our founders were guided by GOD to protect with a new form of government.

A form of government that has been co-opted and corrupted by its enemies.

The people pushing this agenda aren't even socialists anymore - they're full-out communists. Government seeks to tell us everything we can and can't do: what we can and can't say, what medical care we may receive, how warm or cool we can keep our houses, how much we can drive, how much money we're allowed to make... all to make sure that THEY ALONE have the power! While they spew their lies and fly their jets to self-congratulatory banquets! Bunch of evil, EVIL hypocrites!!! Using orchestrated class warfare to finally separate us into a class of mediocres and their RULERS.

(Can you hear the bile? It's flowing, OH it's flowing now...)

This is the perversion of everything that America can represent! And it's possible because so many in this country have been falsely educated. The LIES we've been taught have reached maturity, and I'm truly afraid for society to reap the consequences.

NO, we are NOT all socialists.

But we're all going to suffer like them, likely by a razor-thin margin of passage.

I was never a fan of collective punishment in elementary school, and I'm REALLY not a fan of it now. I would betray my ancestors' courage and my child's trust by surrendering to this media-created tide. I will fight it in EVERY WAY I can.

How DARE you, CONGRESS?!?!



You would STEAL my CHILD'S FREEDOM and economic future for your own comfort and political aggrandizement?!?!


You use my tax dollars? You function the way you're supposed to.

You expect my support? You learn to READ THE CONSTITUTION.

You want my cooperation? You DON'T talk down to me like the threat you pose is some antiquated conspiracy theory, and I'm just too STOOOPID to understand reality.

But you want "socialism?" You take your evil, simultaneously namby-pamby and oppressive ideas somewhere else, and stay away from me.

Because I've read history, and I know what happens when a government gets as much power as you're trying to take.

And I will NOT remain silent while you destroy my son's future.

09 February 2009

And a Law Against Using Them While Driving in Ten Years and a Month

... or a study linking them to cancer...

... or a government license for them...

"Them" being TV contacts. In ten years. (h/t: Drudge)

A good number of highly meritorious arguments can be made against most of the possible "features" listed in the article; but my biggest sticking point comes at the mention of directly manipulating people's feelings in connection with the events "on-screen."

Does ANYONE think that's a good idea?!?!

I'm trying hard not to condemn useless technological "advances," because I know a lot of useful ones end up being discovered along the way; but STILL - this is a tough one!

05 February 2009

Sing it, Glenn!


I'm calling it the "Union of Former Soviet Socialist Republics."

I'm not even kidding.

Several formerly-Soviet countries are joining ranks with - where else but Russia - for purposes of "defense." Ordinarily, alliances shouldn't be problematic, but when the leader of that alliance is openly antagonistic to the US, they present cause for concern.

Now, to be fair, Kyrgyzstan is offering to save us the trouble of maintaining our base there. We only use it to get troops into Afghanistan, after all.


Power to the people, people.

Looks like we've been overburdening the phone lines at the Capitol.

Now, I'm not about being angry on the phone - quite the opposite, in fact - but this sort of "telephone offensive" is EXACTLY what we need to have going on.

Keep calling!!! :-)

And on a different note, I wonder whether the infrastructure in the "stimulus" bill provides for an upgrade to the Capitol's phone bank...

03 February 2009

Bailouts Past and Present

Here's a funny article by BBC News regarding whether government bailouts have worked.

And I do mean "funny" - it reads like a stand-up routine. [Any emphases here are mine.]

It lists the US airline industry as a "successful example" of a bailout:
The government received shares in the airlines in return for guaranteeing loans to them and also charged fees for participating in the scheme.
Hmm. "Scheme," indeed! All but a few airlines are still running in the red, if I'm not mistaken... although I see that taxpayers made some interest off the loan. Again, hmm. Should we really feel good about siphoning money out of the private sector?

It only gets better from there!

The UK nationalized Rolls Royce in 1971; a professor comments, "The idea was that the government could later withdraw, but it never did as planned."

Are you laughing out loud yet? Because here's what that segment concludes with: "There is strong evidence that nationalisation leads to lower efficiency," says Professor Pandit.

Then there are statements like this regarding the S&L crisis in the US, by Professor Vaughan Williams: "To get back 80% on what were bankrupt assets could be called a success."

Okay, end of comedy.

Lest you get the impression that bailouts are a 20th century invention, the article ends with what happened during the formative years of our country, in 1792: "With the value of bonds collapsing, the first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton told banks [, which were collapsing after one banker's corrupt scheme had gone awry,] to accept bonds as collateral for loans, which were then underwritten by the government."

Hamilton was a cad and a scheming, power-mongering High Federalist.

He played on honest people's lack of suspicion.

And it's still happening today. Please watch these Secretaries who are being installed. Keep open communication with your representatives and let them know how you feel. It's only through speaking more effectively than lobbyists' money and acting more effectively by voting honest people into office that we will regain control of our government.

Great Read on Israel and Iran

And more. From Michael Yon:
Hamas, supported by Iran, is clear about their goals: they want to wipe out Israel completely, utterly, with finality. But it’s not just Israel that Hamas wants to kill; they want to kill all Jews everywhere. Complete genocide.

And when Iran has the capacity to launch rockets over to Europe or the United States, one can count on it happening. If they can manage to hatch nuclear weapons, we could see Israeli cities annihilated, leaving Israelis with little choice other than to respond with nuclear weapons, which could leave millions dead. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iraq will want them, as will other nations who are threatened by Iran. (emph. added)
It's a quick, informative read, from someone who's earned respect throughout many, varied, circles for his courage and objective reporting.