At such a critical time, our president will be chosen by the most confused (or gutless) voters

28 08 2012

For many years I have mused and wondered about who the “independent” voter really is.  These uncommitted voters — uncommitted to any political party — will change their vote from Democrat to Republican and back, apparently, based on the situation.  I have never been able to understand that.  How can anyone not fall firmly on one side or the other when the two parties present such starkly different vision for our country?

Now I have some insights.  This post by Daniel Foster provides an intimate look into the minds of these “independents,”  and it’s not pretty.  Baiscally they are a bunch of confused people, unable to settle on a real understanding of good, bad, right wrong, left or right, because they either don’t really understand how to think critically, or because they are so concerned about seeming “extreme” that they attempt to split the middle on everything they think about.  Tyhe internal inconsistencies would be enough to drive me off a cliff, but apparently these folks don’t think about it hard enough to notice.

Anyway, if you thought the president would be chosen by one party or another, by people with clear, sincere convictions, you were wrong.  The president will be chosen by the most gutless — or most confused, depending on how you look at it — voters in the country.





Today is a Good Day for Liberty!

28 06 2010

Today the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, and affirmatively established the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Read the full ruling here.

Over the next few weeks I will be surveying and commenting on the fallout, which promises to be substantial.  For now, I would direct you to this early commentary by Ilya Shapiro on Akin Gump’s SCOTUS Blog.  Shapiro correctly points out that the Court arrived at the right conclusion, but took the wrong path.  It would have been preferrable for the Court to rule on the basis of the Privileges and Immunities clause, but they wimped out and ruled on the Due Process clause.  Only Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, made the case for the obvious.

Nonetheless, today the right to keep and bear arms was affirmed as fundamental to our established notion of a free and ordered society.  Today is a good day for liberty!





Obama Inflames While Washington Burns

28 04 2010

While the federal government he administers continuously fails to enforce immigration laws or protect the very borders of our nation, our president uses his position to inflame passions by making up outright lies about Arizona’s new illegal immigration law.  Here’s President Obama on what he thinks will happen in Arizona under the new law:

“Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed — that’s something that could potentially happen,” Obama said of the Arizona measure.

What a buffoon!  This is the Harvard trained lawyer?  Has he read the bill?  He’s just making this stuff up to rally the few Americans left who will admit they voted for him.     The fact is, Arizona police will not be randomly demanding from pedestrians that they produce passports.  It’s ridiculous to assert that this would happen.  What might happen is that someone who is stopped for a traffic violation, who fails to produce license, registration and proof of insurance (papers most illegal immigrants lack), that person may be arrested.  An investigation of the person’s resident status might ensue.

Just for the record, here’s the text of the new law.

Barack Obama is not qualified to read a very simple law, much less to be president of this great country.





FDA wants to tell you how much salt you can eat …in the name of “healthcare costs”

20 04 2010

And so it begins.  The state that controls your healthcare controls everything.  Don’t forget that.  Any activity the state wants to regulate that can be connected, however tenuously, to healthcare costs, will become a new object of control.  This from Reuters, via Fox News:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

Is that the change so many Americans voted for?  A government so powerful and intrusive that it can tell them how much salt to eat? Did voters really mean they wanted a building full of unionized bureaucrats sitting in the FDA building with nothing to do but figure out if something you eat has too much salt in it?

Note the justification for this nanny state overreach:  saving health care costs.  My friends, there isn’t anything you do that they can’t connect to healthcare costs.  Today it’s salt, tomorrow it’s your guns.

Repeal Obamacare and fire them all!





Obamacare Gives Health Bureaucrats Access to Your Tax Records

28 08 2009

Thanks to Declan McCullagh at CBS News Blogs for pointing out another horrible aspect of the Obamacare plan.  This time, it has to do with healthcare bureaucrats having access to your IRS tax records. (Read  Declan’s blog story here.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.

There seems to be no limit on the intrusions the Democrats are willing to make into your private life.  From deciding what healthcare you should have to spreading around your tax records, they think they’re entitled to all of it.

By the way, if you’d like to read the whole stinking pile of manure for yourself, go here.





Beware The Expedient Religion of Barack Obama

21 08 2009

Pastors and rabbis had better beware the expedient religion of Barack Obama.

Today it was reported that President Obama attempted to enlist the assistance of Jewish rabbis during the Rosh Hashanah holiday to further the promotion of his health industry takeover.  Speaking to around 1000 rabbis, the President urged the religious leaders to preach healthcare deform reform from the pulpit over the Jewish New Year, saying:”We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”

Immediately I remembered his answer to Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren during the campaign, when asked at what point an unborn child might deserve human rights.  Obama demurred, claiming:“… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

So let me get this straight.  The President knows for certain that he is cooperating with God in the “matter of life and death” that arises from health care deform reform legislation, but when it comes to life and death of an innocent unborn American, he can’t be certain at all what God wants him to think.

All of this suggests that Barack Obama’s theology — like his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his relationship with its former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright — constitute matters of simple political expediency.  He embraces them when they suit his current political need, and he throws them under the bus when they stand in the way of political victory.