The Unconstitutionality of the New Health Care BS.

The states and the federal government are battling over the Constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform. I'd argue that the states are correct. The federal government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to FORCE individuals to purchase anything, save health insurance. Try not purchasing health insurance under the new bill...you will be fined and if you don't pay, men with guns will come to your front door. The government has no right to tell what I can buy (i.e. health care) or what I can't buy (i.e. firearms). I just wish these stupid bastards would stop interfering with our daily lives and let us get on with it!

I am reminded of the saying, "Ignore your rights and they will go away."

Once again, Reason magazine hits the nail on the head...

Don't buy it: The crazy constitutional logic of the individual insurance mandate.

Racist, bigots and Obama

I know, I know, the phrase "racist morons" is redundant. The Klan and other racist, hateful asshats are all spooled up about Obama becoming their (and our) president.

White supremacists under the scanner ahead of Obama swearing-in

"Washington, Jan 17 (ANI): White supremacists across the United States are closely being watched by hate crimes experts and law enforcement officials as Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in as the first Black president of the United States next week.

So far, there is no known organized effort to express opposition to Obama's rise to the presidency — other than a call by the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for its members to wear black armbands and fly the US flag upside down on Inauguration Day and Obamas first full day in office, the Daily News reported.

The level of vitriol, I expect, will go up a bit more around inauguration time, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.

There is concern about White supremacist groups during the inauguration, said Joe Persichini, the assistant FBI director who is helping to oversee security during the inauguration.

The inauguration of the nations first minority president increases any potential threat, particularly stemming from individuals on the extremist fringe of the white supremacist movement, said a recent intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

But law enforcement has the appropriate resources to respond if needed, Persichini said. We have seen a lot of chatter. We have seen a lot of discussions, he said.
We have seen some information via the Internet. But those are discussions. We look at the vulnerabilities and whether or not the groups are taking action. You have freedom of speech, he added.

Anger, violence and interest in racist ideology did increase in the hours and days after Obama was elected president in November, hate groups experts said.

Three New York men were indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights — accused of targeting and attacking African-Americans in a brutal crime spree soon after Obama was declared the winner on November 4."

Guess what? Obama will be the American president for the next 4 years, perhaps even the next 8. Get used to it. Did I vote for Obama? No, I voted for Libertarian Bob Barr. Do I like many of Obama's ideas and political leanings? Certainly not. However, that is no reason for hatred and bigotry. Don't hate the man, but please feel free to vehemently disagree with his politics.

The increased security measures the government will employ during and after the inauguration (and for which we'll have to pay) could be used as another excuse for government to restrict our individual freedoms. Why? Because of threats from a bunch of stupid morons want to commit violence and assassinate someone because of skin color and ethnic background. Its amazing that in 2009 some people can still be so easily driven by hate.

When the complaints about the government infringing upon our freedoms and individual rights begin, I know where the loudest complaints will likely come from.

Chris Matthews loves Barack Obama

I detect no bias here, whatsoever. Chris Matthews is incredibly fair. LOL.



Chris Matthews says, "He [Obama] speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics." A politician, running for president, speaking about America, in a way that has nothing to do with politics? What a bunch of crap.

Chris gets a "thrill going up his leg." Like when you meet a horny dog for the first time?

Diatha D. Harris in her classroom

Fifth-grade teacher Diatha D. Harris says that for president "I can support whomever I want to support as long as I don't brow beat another person for the candidate that they supported."

Maybe she meant no brow beating unless its in her fifth grade classroom.

Yes, you heard correctly. Ms. Harris said, "John, oh no, John McCain. Oh Jesus, John McCain."

And yes, Ms. Harris did refer to the Iraq war as "a senseless war" followed by the statement that John McCain "is saying that our troops could stay in Iraq for another 100 years if they need to. That means your daddy could stay in the military for another 100 years."

I would have loved if the student actually did the math and exclaimed, "sweet my dad is going to live until he's 140!" I hope that Ms. Harris is not a fifth grade math teacher.

Diatha, you were brow beating that poor student. Most fifth graders are not mature enough to understand politics, let alone discuss the "senselessness" of a military conflict. Of course, we can't believe everything we see since "it (the video) has been doctored, they didn’t show anything about Obama.”

They didn't show anything about Obama? Do you mean to say that the video was doctored to purposely exclude where you brow beat Obama supporters, too (I doubt it)? These kids are in fifth grade. They're not old enough to understand politics, discuss reasons for going to war or ponder why people die in wars. Try teaching them some spelling or reading (but not math). Then maybe some day they'll be able to discuss politics and be part of the political process in America.

Tomorrow's election

If you're voting for Obama tomorrow or if you're still undecided, please think about the bull.

Five reasons to vote against Obama

I came across this article in the Boston Herald written by columnist and talk show host Howie Carr. Despite the article's title, there appears to be six reasons listed in the article (not to mention the many reasons that were left out - after all, a columnist's space is limited). Getting this particular list down to a mere 5 or 6 was probably incredibly difficult.

Five reasons to vote against Obama:

"Five reasons to vote against Obama? Only five? I could give you 50, no problem.

1. He wants to tax working Americans back to the Stone Age. He lies when he says he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You know it’s nonsense because they can’t keep their numbers straight from hour to hour. Obama claims everyone making under $250,000 is safe, or is it $200,000 (the infomercial) or $150,000 (Joe Biden)? On Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson cut it to $120,000. Oh what a tangled web we weave. The fact is, the wealth-spreaders have vowed to do away with the Bush tax cuts. So everybody who pays any income taxes is going to take a hit. Plus, the friends of ACORN also plan to get rid of the cap on Social Security withholding taxes. That means everyone who makes over $102,700 will be slaughtered. I don’t have room to talk about capital gains.

2. The federal courts. In that famous 2001 Chicago radio interview, Obama wistfully talked about the need for the Supreme Court to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. You know, those pesky constraints that make us a nation of laws, not governed by the whims of the Friends of Obama, or Jeremiah Wright. You think Breyer and Ginsburg are beyond the pale? Obama’s crowd thinks they’re too conservative.

3. Teach the Obama-worshipping bumkisser media a lesson. Have they ever been more in the tank for anyone? They’re all worried about the Patriot Act and terrorists’ rights at Gitmo, but they had no problems printing flat-out lies about Sarah Palin. More recently, they took handouts from Obama thugs in Ohio on Joe the Plumber’s tax liens, divorce problems, child-support payments etc. - worse violations of privacy rights than anything that’s happened under the Patriot Act. But who cares - Joe the Plumber is just a typical white person.

4. The character of Barack Obama. You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much. He lectures you that your kids will have to learn Spanish - your kids, not his. He’s always railing about economic justice, but his illegal-alien aunt lives in poverty in Southie. Hey Barack, I thought charity began at home. Like John Kerry and Joe Biden, he doesn’t believe in donating to charity. Obama is a classic liberal hypocrite: He’ll give anybody the shirt off your back, not his.

5. Michelle Obama. Another pampered semi-literate Ivy Leaguer who still considers herself a victim, even with her $360,000-a-year job as diversity coordinator at a Chicago hospital. Can you stand four years of this harridan lecturing you on your greed?

6. All the other stuff I don’t have much room for. Where the heck was Barack Obama really born? Don’t forget his pal Bill Ayers dedication of his 1974 book 'Prairie Fire' to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. (Are you listening, Teddy and Caroline?) If Obama loses, Gwen Ifill’s book tanks. The return of the Fairness Doctrine to censor free speech. Joe Biden, a heartbeat away. And the No. 1 reason of all to vote against Barack Obama: If he loses it will drive the moonbats absolutely bonkers."

Is this the "change" we want?

We are in the 11th hour in the decision for our next president and either we have our heads up our asses or we're all like moths following the bright and shiny light in the Obama/Biden moth trap.

Exactly how does the Obama/Biden camp define rich? Exactly how would an Obama administration change our already onerous and ridiculous tax code?

Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking? Confusion abounds as voters hear $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000

Originally, Obama said everyone making less than $250,000 will not see a tax increase.

Then Obama said that everyone making$200,000Then Joe Biden said it wasbut Gov. Richardson said

Then there is the famous claim that "95 percent of working Americans" will receive a tax break. However, 95% of Americans would only include those making less than $153,542 per year (which essentially supports Biden's claim).

Nevermind the continual flip-flopping between "tax cut" and "no tax increase."

So exactly where would an Obama administration draw the line? The election has yet to happen and the taxation message out of the Obama/Biden camp has changed more often then there are days remaining until the election. Is this the type of change we want - continually changing positions on the issues? Perhaps next the limit for a tax increase will be near the poverty level so EVERYONE sees a tax increase. Again, I ask, "is this really the 'change' we want??"

A civilian national security force?

A civilian national security force to help defend and secure the homeland? Cool, he must be talking about the second amendment! Sweet. Oh, wait, how will we defend the homeland if the government takes away our guns? I guess we should all start sharpening our sticks. Of course when someone uses a stick to commit a murder, sharp sticks will be outlawed.

The government is big....and its only going to get bigger.

Barack Obama on Concealed Carry

Under Obama/Biden, you would likely lose the individual right to personal protection.

From nraila.org: Barack Obama and Concealed Carry:

A compelling argument against a vote for Obama

I am not much of a fan of John McCain. However, there is no way that I could ever vote for Obama. Here is a good summary of why Obama and other liberals are not worthy of my vote.



Sure, things in America are not so great and McCain may or may not continue many of Bush's policies. Obama's mantra is "change we can believe in." But change is not always good. Sure, I believe in the changes an Obama administration would bring, I just don't like them.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Spread the wealth!



An admission that Obama wants to use the power of the federal government to forcefully steal more of your money.

How dare you question me....I am Joe Biden. Don't you know how important I am?!?!

Barbara West of Florida's WFTV grilled Joe Biden about a potential Obama administration's marxist leanings. She even quoted Karl Marx ("from each according to his ability, to each according his need") and asked how Obama is not a Marxist if he intends to "spread the wealth."
Biden asks if the question is a joke. Personally, I find nothing funny about Obama's Marxism.



I'm mesmerized by Biden's last comment. When asked what he would say to people who are concerned that Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country, such as Sweden, Biden said, "I don't know anyone who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party." Hey Biden, you big jabroni, you must not know any Libertarians. I am no where near the "far right wing of the Republican party" and Obama's marxist leanings scare me.

Barack Obama and Guns

Some pickings from the internet on Obama and guns.....

Barack Obama Supports Gun Rights (NOT!)

Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners

The Obama Nightmare

Obama’s Anti Gun Rights Record and He Must Not Be Elected.

www.GunBaNObama.com

Presidential economic policies......

McCain has come to the great realization (finally) that something isn't quite right with Obama's taxation policy.

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it."

Shuffling wealth? Sounds to me like "redistribution of wealth." A phrase which absolutely nauseates me.

I am not endorsing McCain's economic policies, although, McCain's economic policies would be less detrimental to America than Obama's.

If we really want fairness in the tax code we need to institute the flat tax or the FairTax. This whole "redistribution of wealth" concept and the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is merely Marxist BS.

The Zionists will loose their clout!

If Obama is elected president, Jesse Jackson claims that, "'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades' will lose a great deal of their clout."

Remember that J.J. is the man who said, "Barack's been talking down to black people.... I want to cut his nuts off" and of course called Jews "Hymies" and NYC "Hymietown."



I'm glad that we "Zionists" (a.k.a. Jews) are loosing control of America. Running America from my living room is a bit tiring.

Felons voting for felons

There is a push in some areas of the country to get ex-felons to the polls this November. I don't have much of a problem with voting laws which allow people, convicted of certain felonies, to regain their voting rights after their debt to society has been paid in full. But I do have a problem with someone mounting an effort to help someone, in this case ex-felons, under the guise of actually giving a damn about the people that they claim to want to help. There is often something more sinister behind it all.

Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama

Here are a few interesting excerpts:

"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Undaunted by the heat, James Bailey spent his late-summer afternoons walking Virginia's bleakest neighborhoods on the hunt for ex-cons — each a potential voter who might cast the decisive ballot in this hotly contested state........

Nationally, there are roughly 4 million released felons whose convictions have cost them the right to vote at least temporarily, if not permanently. To return to the ballot box, felons must negotiate suffrage laws that vary from state to state, in many cases working with election officials who can be both unfamiliar with the law and hostile to former convicts seeking to register......

Such challenges (getting felons to attempt to get their voting rights restored) matter little to Bailey and others trying to return former criminals to voter rolls, an effort they consider crucial in light of the results of the past two presidential elections: A shift of a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 would have changed the outcome of the presidential race, and the results in 2004 came down to a margin of 119,000 votes in Ohio.

The nonprofit groups and individual activists making the push on felons' behalf agree the effort is broader this year than in previous elections, even if they aren't necessarily making a coordinated push. They expect that effort to benefit Barack Obama more than John McCain, given that the population of former felons is disproportionately black."

Interesting.......so this effort is not about helping people who have committed crimes, paid their debt to society and would like to return to and contribute to society......its about getting Obama elected.

There's more.....

"Kenneth Glasgow served 14 years on robbery and drug charges in Alabama. Now a pastor, Glasgow launched a voter registration drive inside the prisons in Alabama, where state law allows voting by felons convicted of lesser crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs, battery or attempted burglary — even while still serving a sentence.

'It's not a black-white thing,' Glasgow said. 'It's that people will see Republicans standing against having people's rights restored while the Democrats aren't.'"

Only Republicans, and not Democrats, stand against restoration of people's rights? Democrats are not standing against people's rights? Really??!! How about my right to privacy, my right to self-defense and gun ownership or my right to keep more of the money that I earn?

Both parties are guilty of expanding government and eroding our individual rights. But to claim to care about ex-felon's voting rights when its really about the "outcome of the last 2 presidential elections" is disingenuous. To claim that a major political party is not working against individual rights when, in fact, that same party has routinely worked to erode the individual rights of law abiding citizens is ridiculous.

Someone has an opinion on Obama.........

A picture sent to me this morning by a friend and coworker......

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Obama and McCain

Not that I agree with a bailout of any private corporations by our federal government with our tax dollars, but at least McCain wants to do what he is getting paid to do - work in Congress.

McCain Suspends Campaign to Help With Bailout: "John McCain will suspend his presidential campaign Thursday and has asked to postpone his debate Friday with Barack Obama so the two senators can return to Washington to help negotiate a Wall Street bailout, an approach that Obama promptly rejected."

So John McCain has decided to see if he can help, as a member of Congress, with our current financial situation. He wants to go back to Congress to do the job he has, not the job he wants.

Obama disagrees with McCain essentially saying (in my interpretation), "screw Congress and the financial crisis, I want to be the next president, let's debate!" BHO said: "Such disruptive measures were unnecessary." BHO thinks that if McCain delays the debate to do the job for which McCain (and Obama) are being paid, that's "disruptive."

More Obama: "There are times for politics and there are times to rise above them, do what is right for the country. This is one of those times." Hey you big dummy, Congressional votes are part of politics, voting on bills and issues is part of what is right for the country and its your current occupation. Staying on the campaign trail and missing a large majority of Congressional votes is not right for the country. Members of Congress should get paid according to the number of times that they vote "yes" or "no" on issues. Showing up and voting "present" shouldn't count.

The prefix "Con-" is the opposite of the prefix "Pro-" which makes Congress the opposite of progress. Obama examplifies this idea.

I'm gonna go drink a couple more beers. This election is depressing. I'd vote for Bob Barr if it wasn't the equivalent of voting against McCain and for the next Vladimir Lenin.

You can put lipstick on a marxist.....

...but he's still a Marxist.

No matter how much "lipstick" the media puts on Obama, he's still a marxist.

Has freedom become a political orphan?

Steve Chapman has written a superb editorial at chicagotribune.com about the lack of individuality and freedom and the rise of collectivism in America. He specifically sites the lack of any mention of the idea of freedom in the recent republican and democratic conventions.

The article is so good that I have reposted the article in its entirety.

"'We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. —Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination'

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was 'Serving a Cause Greater than Self.' Tuesday was 'Service,' Wednesday was 'Reform' and Thursday was 'Peace.'

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were 'One Nation,' 'Renewing America's Promise' and 'Securing America's Future.' The party proclaimed 'an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.' Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The 'essence of America's promise,' he declared in Denver, is 'individual responsibility and mutual responsibility'—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The 'promise of America,' he said, is 'the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.'

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.

'All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself,' wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. 'The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.'

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: 'We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.'

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?

Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a 'homosexual lifestyle,' the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.

Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.

But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.

The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you."

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman and his e-mail address is schapman@tribune.com