Democrats vote to socialize health care, satisfying no one

Well as expected (as least by me) the Democratically controlled House of Representatives has passed legislation so complex, contradictory, and confusing that they likely have no real idea what is in it.  By doing so, they have effectively moved our nation closer to socialization of health care; a goal they’ve had for 70 years.

Is anyone happy about this?

I venture to say, NO.  Liberals will be dissatisfied because the bill doesn’t go far enough and potentially puts lots of money in the pockets of insurance companies.  Conservatives (and anyone with good sense) will disapprove because it isn’t a good plan and besides, it probably isn’t really constitutional (something Congress, the Courts, and the Executive branch have longed ceased caring about).

Just so you know, the bill requires some things:

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

And that is just the beginning.  May God have mercy on us all!

What the h3ll is wrong with this man? Obama gives “shout out” before addressing national tragedy

Somebody please bring the grown ups back!!!

By now you’ve heard the tragic news of the mass shooting that occurred in Ft. Hood Army Base in Texas.  As of this writing there are twelve confirmed dead and thirty wounded, including a number of civilians.   Officials have in custody Major Malik Nadal Hasan who was himself wounded as he attacking some of America’s finest.  Fox News reports:

A military doctor who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at the Army’s Fort Hood that left 12 dead and at least 30 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.

The news that the suspect, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, was alive and in stable condition, came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead.

Two other soldiers who were taken into custody as possible suspects were released Lt. Gen. Bob Cone told reporters Thursday evening.

"suspected" Ft. Hood shooter Major Malik Nadal Hasan

A female first responder who shot at Hasan and was previously thought to be dead, was also alive, Cone said.

Federal law enforcement officials say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.

Cone said the injuries “vary significantly” among the victims wounded in the shooting. The victims include one civilian police officer.

The shooter’s cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News that their family is in shock.

“We are trying to make sense of all this,” Nader Hasan said. “He wasn’t even someone who enjoyed going to the firing range.”

He said his cousin, who was born and raised in Virginia and graduated from Virginia Tech University, turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nader Hasan said his cousin, who was raised a Muslim, wanted to go into the military against his parent’s wishes — but was taunted by others after the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

He now is believed to have been behind the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military base in history.

We know he is a Muslim, but of course the media wants to make nice and doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers although I’m quite sure if the guy had been remotely Christian they  would not have hesitated to mention it or have talking heads on discussing the resurgence of right wing extremism due to racism or something.  As it is, the PC police are unwilling to note the obvious connections and raise the right questions.  Even more disturbing than this however is the altogether frivolous and immature way our so-called president responded:

You know, the proper time for shout-outs is at concerts, basketball games, and when you win the academy awards, not when you’re about to comment on the massacre of American servicemen by a loony Muslim extremist on our own soil!!!

Ohhhh… It Ain’t my fault

All he needs is a theme song

President Obama is widely recognized as being the “coolest” president in recent history, certainly cooler than George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton, both of whom were variations on the theme of all American good ole’ boys even though they were both educated in Ivy League schools; something most real good ole’ boys can’t relate to.  Mr. Obama has it all, according to his fans: good looks, a glamorous wife, pretty children, and the all too necessary strut.  The only thing he’s missing to complete the image is a theme song.

Well, I’ve found one, thanks to the musical styling of Silkk the Shocker who released an album in 1998 called Charge It 2 da Game which contained a song whose refrain adequately describes Obama’s approach to the presidency (warning strong lyrics):

Indeed, whatever happens or will happen under President Obama, we can be assured that it ain’t his fault.  From Ross Calvin at Reuters:

A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with — from the economy to the war in Afghanistan — are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

So a year almost a full year into the job and Obama is discovering that not only is the job is difficult, but it’s really Bush’s fault. His lack of leadership, the continued struggles in Afghanistan, the soured economy: all of it is Bush’s fault.

So why did he want this job?  The responsibility of a president is to solve problems, not to pass the buck.  Ed Morrisey at Hot Air says it better than most:

Obama wanted to be President, not to lead, but just to win.  Now that he has won, he has no core set of governing principles other than what impacts Barack Obama.  He has offered no leadership on any part of his agenda all year long, content to have Nancy Pelosi run it for him.  His foreign policy thus far consists entirely of making himself personally popular with the world.  On Afghanistan, Obama has thus far allowed Robert Gates and David Petraeus to make his decisions, only balking at the moment because the McChrystal strategy puts him at odds with his base, which could erode his popularity.

We’ve complained a number of times about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama, but as Todd implies with this answer, it’s really all Obama has.

Well said Ed (rhymes doesn’t it?).  Eventually though, Obama will have to take some ownershipas  William Hughes at the Camden County Conservative Examiner notes in discussing Obama’s campaigninf for Jon Corzine:

At some point our president is going to have to man up and take responsibility. Yes, we get it, George Bush was a horrible monster that sought to kill us all. Even if, however, the wily cowboy from Texas burned the entire nation to the ground, it wouldn’t warrant the constant self-pity and school-girl like whining that emits from the mouth of the great scripted one every time he stutters, er, speaks.

His argument in defense of his own ineptitude and nefarious socialist dealings is weak enough. When you use it to defend a four year incumbent governor, who succeeded another four year Democratic governor, you then have to ignore 8 years of Democratic governance in order to blame the mess on someone else. Try that next time you get into trouble at work. Blame it on the person who held your job 8 years prior to you and see how that goes.

Yep go ahead and try it.  And don’t let the door hit you on your way out the door.

Speaking truth to power

One of the most important functions of the American media is to hold to account elected officials of whatever stripe for their words and actions. The Obama administration has received tremendously favorable press coverage from the outset of his campaign and continuing into his presidency. This however is apparently not enough to satisfy them as they have launched a well known attack against Fox News for what they call biased and distorted reporting. Fine, Fox News may or may not be biased, and we can talk about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the president’s actions against them. What we cannot do however, is pretend that the Fox News network is somehow a “power” to be spoken up against, as Obama flak Valerie Jarrett suggests in this CNN interview with Campbell Brown:

CNN, apparently tiring of being too obviously in the tank for Obama and weary of outright lies from the administration, was sharp enough to note Jarrett’s inconsistency:

To the question of whether Fox News is biased, Jarrett replied: “Well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.”

But when Brown followed up by asking Jarrett if she thinks MSNBC is biased, she quickly downplayed her original remark. “Actually, I don’t want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “When we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion….

“We’re actually calling everybody out. So this isn’t anything that’s simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding,” said Jarrett.

Well that’s nice, but as noted on Hot Air, what is truly shocking is that the senior advisor to the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful political person on the planet, is talking about “speaking truth to power.”  Ms. Jarrett, YOU ARE  THE POWER!!

It is a stunning development, comedic if not so tragic, to see the exceedingly thin skin of the Obama administration be exposed.  Here we have a man who hold the nuclear codes for the nations arsenal at his disposal, for whom entire city blocks are routinely shut down to accommodate his date nights, and for whose words entire nations wait to determine their diplomatic response.   And yet his panties are in a twist because GLENN BECK doesn’t like him?? I mean seriously?  How spoiled and childish can one be?  And how obtuse must be Ms. Jarrett and grievance minded her boss, Mr. Obama, to be using phrases like, “speaking truth to power?”

The phrase speaking truth to power is useful when one is oppressed, or when truth is somehow being systematically suppressed by those in power.  In this case, it is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the dozens of talk radio hosts from Michael Savage, to Limbaugh, to Phil Valentine, who are in that position.  You Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett, ARE the power to whom TRUTH must be spoken.  It is obvious that Obama has never had to endure anything other than sycophantic approval from his admirers and little but muted critique from his detractors.  Not even John McCain in his campaign brought any big guns to bear against Obama, preferring instead to run a muddled and unfocused campaign that few can remember and which led unsurprisingly to Obama’s election.

Mr. President, it is time to grow up!

The Rage of the Common Man

We're not happy

H/T to the Black Informant for finding this bit of information…

As readers may or may not know, I was in my youth, much closer in ideology to being a full on socialist (though with reservations) than a right winger.  Though I’ve since wised up, I retain a healthy degree of socialist skepticism of monied interests (as do all true conservatives) and believe that the two party system is much more of a scam than anyone cares to openly admit.  The real divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between the ones who dominate government through monetary means and those of us, the vast majority, who do not, but who are often the ones paying the bills.

These lines in particular caught my attention as the Black Informant talks about socialist John Pilger:

If you do not hear anything else I say, just follow the money. While we peons are out here in cyberspace arguing and debating over the latest comment made by Rush Limbaugh, the name given to fried chicken joints, who compared Michelle Obama to a monkey, money is constantly exchanging hands in Washington. It (money) is probably one of the only things in Washington that does not discriminate. Party affiliation does not matter, neither does the color of one’s skin.

This is profoundly and deeply true.  Barack Obama in particular (and the Democratic Party in general) benefited from hundreds of millions in corporate dollars in the financing of his campaign.  The same monies that poured in to support Bush are the same ones that back Obama, and you can be sure that in politics, as in all things, money buys influence.

Much noise has been made about tea-party protests, the slide in Obama’s popularity, the socialist policies of the new administration, but by and large, many things, indeed most things remain the same.  People on both ends of the political spectrum are frustrated with Obama’s governance, for what they believe are very different reasons.  I believe however that their anger has more in common than they realize.  Pilger is very far to the left, but these words easily resonate on the right as well:

My own guess is that a populism is growing once again in America, evoking a powerful force beneath the surface which has a proud history. From such authentic grassroots Americanism came women’s suffrage, the eight-hour day, graduated income tax, public ownership of railways and communications, the breaking of the power of corporate lobbyists, and much more. In other words, real democracy.

The American populists were far from perfect, but they often spoke for ordinary people and they were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. That was long ago, but how familiar it sounds.

Now of course Pilger sees this populism being put to the use of long standing socialist/leftist ideas which as a conservative I reject as being both impractical and inimical to liberty. However, he does touch a very clear nerve and describes well what I believe to be a bipartisan, grass roots frustration with being ignored by a ruling class that sees itself not as our servants, but as our rulers.

In this kind of system, the voter is nothing more than a group to be manipulated by this or that politician or party. Evangelical Christians discovered this (belatedly) during the Bush administration as his embrace of evangelical faith did little to advance their concerns about homosexual rights and abortion.  Liberal feminists are likewise waking up to the cynical way their concerns about “reproductive rights” (i.e. abortion) are used to keep them voting for Democrats no matter how much they disappoint.  Black Americans it seems are the slowest to begin to wake to see that the race politics of the Democratic Party aren’t really serving their interests.  Again the Black Informant:

For the Black voter, Obama quickly became an easy sell once Obama won Iowa ( a state made up of mostly Whites). We became willing to ditch all those concerns about the war, the economy, politicians who profited from the same “evil” corporations they blasted on the campaign stump in order to take part in history.  Whites loved him–that is all that mattered. We even took it a step further by suggesting that a vote against Obama was a vote against your own race. So despite all the questions a person may have like “Why did Obama and his party continue to court lobbyists even after he repeatedly dissed them publicly”, your loyalty to your race was now on the line. Shut up and vote. Talk about a vote guarantee!

When the economy continued to go south after Obama’s promise that his efforts with his stimulus bill would hold unemployment @8%, criticism has been very light to say the least. In fact, when you do hear criticism, it is directed towards the all-encompassing “government” (even though the listener really know that they are really talking about Obama). When criticisms do make it out of the fold, they are usually confronted with the huge hand of denial that says “It’s way too early to judge Obama.” In the meantime, when a small committee in Oslo decided to JUDGE Obama and give him a Nobel Peace Prize, it was paraded as another “First” that Blacks everywhere should celebrate. Blacks, just like other ethnic minorities, women, members of the GLBT community, the anti-war crowd, the anti/pro-abortion crowd, the disabled, the poor, the uneducated–you name the group–are nothing more than cards in a deck that are played in the game of politics. It’s never about the card itself. Instead, it is all about how the card can be played to achieve a certain goal. Pilger nails it with this quote:

“Real activism has little time for identity politics, which, like exceptionalism, can be fake. These are distractions that confuse and sucker good people.”

The anti-war crowd is only realizing this now.

This is why I always find it interesting to hear how Republicans feel that by engaging in identity politics based on race like Democrats that somehow they will become more liked. Democrats engage in identity politics based on race all the time, yet they cannot point to one city that has improved as a result of their policies under their authority. They had decades of practice and all they can do is blame the other guy.

Right on brother. What he’s saying is very true. Ultimately I believe that the protesters of the tea party movement and the rank and file liberals who were tossed under the bus in the Democratic primary (who mostly dutifully voted for Obama in fear of what McCain / Palin represented) have much in common.  They are equally annoyed that their votes, their concerns, their fears, their agenda, their well being don’t matter at all to the powers that be in Washington.

Liberals are hopping mad that universal health care isn’t being passed.  Conservatives are mad that years of supposedly conservative governance has led to massive deficits.  Both are mad about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, though for different reasons.   Obama rode to power on this wave of discontent, but is proving to be more of the same, but worse.  God help us all.

Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton

Yes, I know I’m late on this, but things have been busy and updating this blog has not been top priority.  In any event you know by now the pettiness of the Obama White House continues to astound even me.  Anita Dunn, White House communications director famously derided the Fox News Channel (known on the left as Faux News).

Unsurprisingly the highly rated cable news network, who does indeed buy ink by the barrel (metaphorically speaking) lost no time in defending itself against Dunn’s (and by extension Obama) outrageous comments.

From Fox News:

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.

“It’s astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming,” Clemente said. “It seems self-serving on their part.”

Self serving indeed, and a very bad tactical move exposing again the thin skin of an administration so coddled by the media that CNN has taken to “fact checking” a Saturday Night Live skit.

Fox News, from its business anchors to its commentators, launched a full scale retaliation that will certainly be more effective than anything the White House can muster.  Obama’s persona is powerful, but when you get Neil Cavuto riled up, you know you’re in trouble:

That’s right.  Neil Cavuto, who used to work for CNBC before coming to Fox and who hosts a business program.  When you get folks like that ticked off at you, you’re in trouble.

The real story here is not Cavuto, nor even Fox News, but rather the increasingly obvious ineffectiveness of Obama’s White House which cannot seem to function on anything other than unadulterated adoration from the press corps.   His predecessor Bush received terrible press coverage throughout both terms of his presidency and was a terrible public speaker, but he never, despite this, demeaned the office of the presidency by getting the White House involved in arguments with the press corps over coverage.

Here Obama slams Fox News personally, which is a silly strategy and makes him look (or rather reveals) his petty thin skinned sensitivity.

Obama is a whiner.  He employs people who complain, and the totality of his approach to the world is based on whining and complaint.  Everything is someone else’s fault in his world. He functions as a man who has never or rarely had anyone tell him the truth about himself or question his “good intentions.”  Obama, it’s time to grow up.

WHAT. THE. H3LL. Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize for….??

What exactly?

You’re not sure. I’m not sure either. When I turned on the television this morning I saw the crawling headline across the bottom of the screen and said to my roommate (I’m on a business trip), “Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.” Unlike me, he is a dedicated supporter of Obama and his response was, “This must be some kind of joke.”

Joke indeed.  But alas, it is no joke.

OSLO (AP) – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.

Now I don’t know much about winning prizes, but in general awards are given in light of some actual accomplishment rather than in a speculative hope about what someone might possibly accomplish at some point.  Mr. Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States of America has accomplished precisely nothing that can be cited as evidence that he is a man of peace.  Nothing that is other than talking in soft tones about nice things.

The prize itself, established by scientist and industrialist Alfred Nobel, was to be given, “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”

I’m having difficulty finding Obama anywhere in that description.  In fact, the political left in this country are rather disquieted by Obama’s continued support for G.W. Bush’s policies in Iraq and the potential escalation in Afghanistan, neither of which evince much of a propensity towards peacemaking on Obama’s part.   However the committee seems to have been influenced by the school of thought that encourages giving A’s for effort.

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

He added that the committee endorsed “Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”

Um… yeah.  So basically the committee is awarding him for being NOT George Bush, whom everyone hated.  Even on the left there seems to be a great deal of incredulity about the whole thing.

Why else give him the honor now? Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award. Few American presidents have received it and of those who have it was bestowed after they’d been engaged in something special. Theodore Roosevelt had helped to negotiate peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson had tirelessly worked for the creation of the League of Nations — a struggle that was blamed for causing the serious stroke he suffered, which left him disengaged in the last years of his presidency.

Jimmy Carter received the Peace Prize after he left office, but in the wake of huge achievements monitoring worldwide elections and in his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor.

Former Vice President Al Gore got the prize after years of working for the environment. And whether you appreciated Henry Kissinger’s getting the award it was in response to his efforts to effect a peace in the Vietnam War.

So, at the moment, I believe it is enormously premature for Obama to be getting this great tribute, which to a certain extent cheapens the prior recipients and the work all of them performed over so many years.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/barack-obama-nobel-peace_b_314899.html

At that’s from a guy who supports him! Well since it is a prize, let’s at least consider those people our illustrious and unaccomplished president beat out for the award.  They are probably all slackers with razor thin accomplishments. From the Weekly Standard blog:

Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

“Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”

“Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”

“Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”

Ahh now I see it.  It is so obvious that none of these people deserved the award.

Change that we need in Washington

Yes, I am blatantly stealing the entirety of this post from another blogger, the thoughtful, foul mouthed, gin fueled, America loving currently living in Japan blogger: Letters To a Dying Dream

1.  Term Limits; the reason so many of the politicians today don’t have to worry about any consequences for their actions is because many cannot be thrown out of office due to the support of their districts who they essentially pay off and bribe, using tax dollars from the whole country.  We all complain about pork and if a congressman knows that he only has a limited time on office he has less incentive to try to bribe the electorate.  The presidency has term limits why not Congress?  To fix some the the problems The Presidency and seats in the Senate should be one six year term with the House seats being one four year term.  No member who has served their six year term in the House or Senate can ever sit in the House or Senate again in any other district or State.  If a House member is really a voice for the people, the state would elect him to the Senate, if he doesn’t have support outside his own little district than he won’t get elected, this way he can’t spend all his time trying to us taxpayers money to buy votes.  The new election cycle would be every 2 years dividing up the seats evenly to insure continuous turnover of the House and Senate with the Presidential elections starting on Year Three of the new policy and continuing from there.  Term limits should be mandatory for all state offices as well.

Yes, this is a good idea. I don’t know about the specifics he mentions here, but the fiefdoms that have been built up in Congress are too strong a temptation for corruption. I would also add to this that Senators should not be directly elected, but should go back to be representatives of the STATES

2.  The policy of giving members of Congress in both the Federal government and the states retirement packages for life after only serving one term needs to end.  No matter how long a Congressmen or President has served they should not be rewarded for life for the simple ability to dupe people into getting the majority of the vote.  The only retirement package most politicians deserve is a life sentence in prison and they certainly don’t deserve to leach off of the taxpayers for life.

Yes.

3.  Every Law that is passed must be able to show how it is Constitutional before it can be enacted, if the Bill and it’s sponsors cannot show how this law would be Constitutional it cannot be made into law.  Any member of the government violating or attempting to violate any constitutional rights can be impeached for this offense, the penalty for violating the constitution is a lifetime ban from any governmental post, up to an including working the counter at the post office, with the worst violations punishable by imprisonment or death.  Further more, all bills must be read in their entirety by every member of Congress as well as the President before they may vote on it or in the case of the President either sign it into law or veto it.  Not only must every bill be read in it’s entirety by every politician who will be voting on it, it must be read out loud in it’s entirety the floor of both the House and Senate by a member of each with every member who plans on voting on it present and must be posted in the public domain for no less than three weeks prior to the actual voting in order for the Citizens of this country to be given ample time to read and understand it before the vote may take place.  The only exception to this is anything that one would need a security clearance to read (almost nothing) can be omitted but the rest of the Bill must still be read.

Not a bad idea, but need to find some group or government agency to deal with this issue. Also it blurs the line a bit between branches of government.

4.  No law can be made by any unelected official.  Only elected members of Congress have the right under the constitution to make laws, any law or regulations not coming from Congress are unconstitutional and are illegal.  Any law that is proposed must be written by either a member of the House or Senate.  Any Regulatory agency who wishes a law to be enacted must request Congress – who must be able to prove it’s constitutionality – to write them a regulation into law before for any regulation can take effect.  Further more, any Bills coming from Congress must be written by a member of Congress and my not be written even in part by anyone else including Congressional staff.

This one is probably a bit impractical so I can’t say yes to this one. But I agree with the sentiment.

5.  The government may not be allowed to give money to any business or organization, unless it is a payment for goods or services rendered, such as buying military hardware, or equipment necessary for work, such as office computers or fax machines.   No money may be spent on things like grants, or subsidies.

YES

6.  Voter registration must be done at the courthouse, no private entity may do this for the government.  If people are too stupid to figure out how to register to vote, they probably don’t need to vote.  When voting the voter must be able to prove he is who he says he is, if someone can’t figure out how to get a photo ID they probably don’t need to be voting, plus it’s not like you can’t scrounge up the $10 for an ID by panhandling for a day or so if you really want to vote that badly.  This will help keep outside organizations with hidden political agendas from attempts at fraud.

Good idea, except it violates the state sovereignty issue. But I do like the idea of limiting voter registration to a government function.

7.  The Federal Government needs to get out of any business that is not specifically in the constitution.  The 9th and 10th amendments are not negotiable, nor is any other.  If your State does not provide a service you want and it is not within the federal Governments Constitutional duties move to a state that does do it, or lobby you state representative like you are supposed to do.  If something is unconstitutional on both levels then lobby to change the Constitution, it is legal to do, although most people might not want to do it, that’s life.  Remember this, if you can ignore one part of the constitution to get what you want that means the whole thing means nothing, even the parts you like.

Yep. People need to be reminded of this

8.  Party affiliation must be removed from the ballot. Too many people simply vote for a party without even bothering to know anything about the candidate, by removing the party affiliation  it would force people to at least learn a little bit about the different candidates before they vote.  If they still want to vote only on party lines that is fine but they have to do the research to figure it out in the first place.

YES YES and YES again. Party politics is killing our republic

9.  Tax law has to be standardized, when companies or special interests can get the government to give them tax breaks in order to get a leg up on their competition it creates a climate where people with money have incentives to bribe politicians.  Subsidies also need to be done away with for the same reason.  It is more economical to use sugar than corn syrup as a sweetener, however do to Government subsidies it makes corn syrup appear cheaper when purchasing, but that is only a trick since the real cost is hidden and passed on to consumers in the form of higher taxes.  Not only does this give an unfair advantage to the corn syrup industry but it ends up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars every year.

Yes, except I would keep the charity deduction

10.  The Speaker of the House must not be chosen by a political party, and should be elected to that position through a vote by the people with no person allowed to hold that position for longer than three years.  Elections must be held 6 weeks prior to the departure of the former Speaker.  Any member of the House who wishes to become Speaker must submit their name for the position one month prior to the election, and after the initial election a secondary runoff election for the top five candidates two weeks later and in the event of a tie or if the top two candidates are within a 5% margin another election will be held two weeks later with only those two on the ballot.

Don’t know about the details of this one, but see the benefit in trying to minimize party influence

11. Any Elected Official convicted of a crime the penalty for the crime should be the highest legal punishment doubled without eligibility for early release or parole. So if something would usually be a maximum three year jail sentence and a $10,000 fine they would automatically get six years in prison a $20,000 fine. In the case of any crime over a misdemeanor they should be stripped of their right to vote permanently, be banned from ever serving in any branch of the government or ever holding any kind of State or Federal job and lose any entitlement to any State of Federal aid they may be otherwise entitle too permanently including pensions, welfare and Social Security.  Any crime committed by an Elected Official that would normally carry a maximum fifteen year jail sentence automatically requires capital punishment rather than a doubling of the jail sentence, the doubling of fines however will still be valid and must be paid by the Official prior to his death or by his estate afterwards, so that if the maximum penalty for the Officials crime is normally fifteen years in prison and a $250,000 dollar fine the Official would be required to pay $500,000 and receive the Death Penalty.

Really? Hmm… violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Our politicians may be scum, but they are citizens

12.  Any bill that proposes a raise in the salaries or benefits of any elected official must be voted on by the people and not the elected officials themselves.  The only time it is permissible for elected officials to raise their own salaries without a popular vote shall be that every ten years the House and Senate may vote on raising salaries but only enough that is covers the average inflation over that previous ten year period rounded down to the whole number, so that if the average rate of inflation was 3.6% they can vote on raising their salaries by 3%,  If it was 1.9% they can raise their salaries by 1%.

This works, but we have to find a way to make it work as a national referendum…

13.  Any governmental expenditures must be posted in the public domain except in the case of certain Defense expenditures where it would give away classified information.  All expenditures on classified projects are posted with only the total monetary amount of all expenditures under the title of “Miscellaneous Defense Spending”.

I like the posting. I think this is already supposed to be happening

14.  The federal Government cannot be allowed to run a deficit except in extreme emergencies such as war time.  After the emergency is over all debts must be paid off within 4 years.

Excellent, though I think safeguards need to be built in to prevent the government from declaring something an “emergency” just to have deficit spending

15.  Any law may be constitutionally challenged in Federal Court without having to show that it is personally harmful in any way other that it’s violation of your Constitutional Rights.   That does not mean that it has to go to the Supreme Court but it does have to recognized and tried by the lower district courts.

Yes, the violation of my rights is enough for a lawsuit to go forth. I should not have to prove harm

16.  Reintroduction of the backing of currency with precious metals. The government must back all monies with either gold or Silver and must have enough of each to cover the amount of paper or electronic money.  The government cannot print more money than 90% of the worth of the gold and silver reserves in it’s possession except in the time of war it can print up to 99% but only as a last resort. It can however print less but no less than 60 percent.

Yes, though I don’t know about the specific percentages. This would be a serious curb on inflation and artificial inflation of the currency by the Fed

What a great list. Pragmatically speaking, many of these ideas would not be implemented and the public would cry bloody murder over having their favorite sacred cows sacrificed, but changes such as these probably are the way to go if we mean to restore constitutional government. What do you think?

It’s not “rape-rape; it depends on your defintion of “is” and now this…

How now brown cow?

The milk of dissimulation, deceit, and dishonesty continues to flow to nourish liberals souls distracted and defeated by the definite deflation of the rapidly diminishing fortunes of  “Teh Greatest President Evah.”  Fresh on the heels of nothing in particular, President Jimmy Carter of race-baiting anti-Semitic fame came fresh from retirement to remind everyone why no wants to hear from him.

So now we see that calling people racists really isn’t calling people racist when you simply say that what you said wasn’t at all what you said and well,  you know it doesn’t really matter that we can all just go check the video and see exactly what it was that you said.  After all, it depends on what your definition of “is” is…

Uh huh.

I’m so glad we got that all straightened out.  Clearly the former President (whom I’m glad to have been young enough not to have had the misfortune of having voted for) has received marching orders from somewhere or someone, perhaps in the counsels of his own mind freed now at 85 to give full vent to whatever random thoughts might pour forth.

There was a time when we were spared these sorts of excesses by former presidents who were decent enough to silently and with dignity shuffle off to whatever presidential library or foundation they might happen to have and then die conveniently in their sleep so that we could have  a big state funeral where everyone could lie and pretend to like them who didn’t.

Of course in another world, Carter would never have been president and absurdities such as these would be rightly considered the incoherent ramblings of  “old uncle Jimmy, please forgive him you know he’s getting on in years,” as we politely changed the subject around the dining room table or someone interjected with a “pass the peas please” to spare old uncle Jimmy the embarrassment of having to acknowledge even in a minor way his presence.

Alas, this is not the world in which we live and we get instead the opportunity to see full on the rank dishonesty that underlies much of how Washington politicians generally and liberals specifically conduct themselves.  Prior to the days of self publishing, YouTube, and teh interwebs, things such as this would politely have been swept under the rug by the media establishment in hopes of maintaining a death-like grip on information and preventing the hoi polloi from disturbing the waters.  Now we are in a different era, and everyone can plainly see that “Is” means “Is,” “Rape” is “Rape” and calling people racist is nothing but a callow and cowardly political ploy.

In defense of the indefensible

Admitted child rapist Roman Polanski

For some things there really is no defense.  Things like the drugging, rape, and sodomy of an underage girl by a middle-aged pervert followed by years on the lam.  And yet, incredibly, there are those who would lend their voice and position to defend the indefensible by stretching the definition of rape to kinda sorta rape-rape.

Well if that don’t beat all.  One would think that the drugging, rape, and sodomy of a child would be enough to meet the necessary standard of indecent behavior but for some, there clearly is no line unworthy of trespass.  I am grateful however for main street liberals (with whom I often disagree) for not falling in line behind this abominable apologetic.  From The Confluence:

If we step back from arguing about Polanski himself and look at what is happening right now, you see a bunch of prominent people defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.  Most or all of those people are associated with the liberal/progressive politics and the Democratic party.  Some of them endorsed Barack Obama and donated to his campaign.

Argue all you want about defending Polanski’s constitutional rights, but if you defend Polanski you are defending a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.  How do you think that will play with the magical “swing” voters in middle America?

If Obama’s Department of Justice and Secretary of State Clinton wimp out on this and don’t do everything they can to bring Polanski to justice, they will be handing the issue to the conservatives all gift-wrapped with a nice bow on it.  The conservatives will say:

“Liberal Democrats defended a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child!”

The worst part is that they will be telling the truth.

Like ACORN’s enablement of child trafficking, this is NOT a partisan issue

ACORN is an organization with a toxic corporate culture that attracts or fosters morally reprehensible behavior.  At worst, it is as corrupt and contemptible as ongoing allegations of widespread voter registration fraud, tax code violations, and contribution fraud would suggest.

Lashing out at everyone from the filmmakers to George Bush, Karl Rove, and the right in general will not make this scandal disappear.  And neither will shameful incidents of media malpractice, feminist silence, and false equivalencies from the liberal blogosphere.  Any degree of support for child sex slavery is indefensible. Period.

Perhaps I should have titled this piece, “Child Sex Trafficking Shouldn’t Be A Partisan Issue.”  It shouldn’t be, and yet, for some, it’s acceptable to look the other way when it threatens to undermine a liberal organization.

And the beauty and artistry of a man’s work cannot cover for the egregious crime he committed.  It saddens me that even such horrors as child trafficking and rape become politicized.

UPDATE: 100 filmmakers sign petition defending Polanski

This is NOT acceptable... I don't care who you are