Friday, February 25, 2011

Obama violates Constitution, once again

When I took social studies in elementary school, and then U.S. Government in college, I learned about our three branches of government: The Congress, which passes legislation (laws), the President, our chief executive who is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws, and our Judicial branch, which can declare a law unconstitutional, and therefore void.

Not any more.

Now, President Obama has the power to decide a law as unconstitutional and decide all by himself that he won't enforce it or defend it. And if a judge considers a law unconstitutional, it doesn't even matter anymore, because Obama has already said he won't listen to the courts (and more than once).

His latest edict from on high: His administration won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 1990s, because he thinks it is unconstitutional. (Because he thinks it, not the Supreme Court).

Was a Constitutional amendment just passed? Did I miss that? Is Obama consolidating power of the Congressional and Judicial branches into the Executive branch? You can bet your ass he is. But you have to dig deep to find it. It's not covered from this angle by the mainstream media. The Washington Examiner, just today, covered another story about Obama's complete disregard for the law:
During a time when DOJ travel is purportedly frozen, these numerous DOJ staffers have been deployed for days in New Orleans and around Louisiana trolling for stories of state officials failing to urge welfare recipients to register to vote.

The DOJ will use the evidence collected from welfare recipients to support a lawsuit against Jindal's administration under Section 7 of Motor Voter.

The "Motor Voter" law passed in 1993 contained an important congressional compromise. Welfare and motor vehicle agencies would serve as voter registration offices, while states would be obligated to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons and dead voters. The two provisions act together as counterparts.

The Obama administration has refused to enforce the voter list integrity provisions while making the welfare agency registration law their top priority.
Other areas where Obama has violated the constitution: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the EPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.

It's also very strange how most of the mainstream media doesn't really cover this aspect of it. If it was a Republican president, they'd be screaming.

Liberals are all about democracy and freedom and tolerance, aren't they? Only when it suits their agenda, though.

As I've said before: Obama has to go. Let's make sure that happens next year, huh?

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Krugman: The worldview of the liberal

Paul Krugman, liberal economist and opinionator for the NYT, wrote of the events in Wisconsin:

For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.
But Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner sees reality more clearly than Krugman:

But the unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs.

More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010.
And, Mr. Krugman, regardless of how you spin it, this is about the budget. The people of Wisconsin voted Republicans into the majority in order to stop the binge spending of the Democrats. Like alcoholics, the Democrats still are in denial that their spending will end up in disaster.

This is about union power, not the will of the people. And when Democrats flee to another state to avoid a vote, they are saying to the people of Wisconsin: Screw You.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Random Musings for a Monday

War in Wisconsin
Public service used to mean just that: Public service, in which government employees served at the will of the people and provided us with services. Not any more, which is obvious in Wisconsin, and will probably spread to other states. And which side is our President on? The people? Of course not. He's on the side of the union goons.

I find is somewhat amusing that after all the vicious attacks against the Tea Party protests and demonstrations, the unions, with their Democratic party supporters, are even more vicious, and messy. It seems, from every account I've read over the last year, that conservatives always clean up after themselves, yet liberals don't. (Photo credit to Ann Althouse)

War in Somalia
On Friday, four Americans were hijacked off the coast of Somalia. The U.S. is considering options. I think there is only one. Go get them. And I was also surprised to learn that some 30 ships and 650 hostages are being held by pirates. This piracy thing was what caused the U.S. to create the Marine Corps in the late 18th century. So use them.

Are higher taxes the answer to our challenges?
As an American taxpayer, I think I pay enough. Just think about it seriously. Everything is taxed. When I got up this morning, I turned on some lights, and paid a tax. Of course, my home is taxed via property taxes. I drank a cup of coffee and paid tax. I put on my clothes, which I paid a tax on when I bought them. I got into my car to go to work, and paid a tax on the gas, and I paid sales tax on the car when I bought it, and I pay a "tax" every year to make it legal. When I got to work, I earned some income, which I paid some taxes on. My company also earned some money, which they will pay taxes on. At lunch, I stopped by my favorite restaurant, and paid taxes on the meal. After work, I'm going to get a new set of tires, and will pay extra tax. When I got home, I made a phone call, and paid some tax. Then I surfed the net, and paid more taxes. Even after I'm dead, if I'm fortunate enough to have an estate, my heirs will probably pay a tax on that...And so on, ad naseum. So don't talk to me about higher and/or more taxes. Enough is enough.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Tea Party clashes with GOP establishment over defense

Maybe -- just maybe -- some common sense will prevail. From Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner:
The tension between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party insurgents erupted on the House floor for the first time Wednesday when 110 GOP representatives -- mostly freshmen and some longtime conservative gadflies -- broke from their leadership and most of their caucus in order to kill a defense contract. The vote highlighted an establishment-versus-Tea Party split that was glaring during the campaign season, and brought to the fore the uncomfortable question of defense spending. The amendment, killing the contract for a backup engine for the F-35 fighter, passed 233-198 Wednesday, but 130 of the 240 voting Republicans opposed the cut, including House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This puts the GOP majority and its leadership at odds with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who doesn't want the backup engine, and former President George W. Bush, who also tried to kill it.
This is like the 17 C-17s that were forced on the Air Force, which said  it had enough cargo aircraft to fulfiill its missions. And once these expensive (about $200 million each) aircraft are built, they have to be funded with parts and maintenance, crews, fuel, etc. But it was Congress who decided to have them built.

We need to get away from this kind of stuff if we're ever going to get our finances in order.

Stop laughing: I think Obama really means it

If it wasn't so important, I'd laugh my ass off over the things Obama says. But it is really important to the future of our country.

I'm beginning to think he actually believes his own b.s. Here's a few quotes from his press conference Tuesday (Feb 15). 

The source is the White House, so the first person to accuse me of misquoting him gets a swift kick to the curb.
When I took office, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. Our budget meets that pledge and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade.
Mr. Obama, the end of your first term is the end of 2012, not the middle of the decade. Your budget won't cut the deficit by half. And if you really think you'll even out spending and revenues by the end of 2015, you must be smoking crack.
And many Democrats and Republicans in Congress today came together in December to pass a tax cut that has made Americans’ paychecks a little bigger this year and will spur on additional economic growth this year.
What? My paycheck isn't bigger! It's just not smaller! You think I'm that stupid? That was not a tax cut. As one congressman so aptly said once: You lie.
We will not be adding more to the national debt. So, to use a -- sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we're not going to be running up the credit card any more. That's important -- and that's hard to do. But it’s necessary to do. And I think that the American people understand that.
All I can say is -- huh? What the f*** are you talking about? The CBO estimates that our annual deficit will still be about $600 billion in 2020. Next year will be the third year of trillion-dollar deficits. During the next 10 years, our national debt will double. DOUBLE! He and his democrat buddies have increased the debt by $3,000,000,000,000 in just TWO years! Is he insane?

How did this guy get to be President?

I'd put in more quotes, but please excuse me while I head to the latrine and puke.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The "progressive" bottom line: more of the same

First of all, I hate the label "progressive." It means nothing. From everything I've read, they base their "progressive" ideology on a socialist model. It's political framing. Progress must be good. But progress to what?

Robert Reich, who served under President Clinton, thinks the answer to our problems is more tax and spending programs, at least for now. But is there ever a time when progressives like Reich wanted to cut taxes and spending? No. Not in my lifetime, which is why we're in such a mess.

Take David Swanson at OpEdNews, who agrees with everything Reich writes:  "I would tax the rich if all it accomplished was taxing the rich."

So that's really what we're faced with: class warfare. Penalize the successful for being successful. Redistribute the wealth. Equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity. Forget the American dream. Under "progressive" programs, we'd be no better off than eastern Europe during the Soviet empire.

"Progressives" are actually left-wing liberals. When someone makes a statement like Swanson, or says the mainstream media is right-wing, you know what playbook they're using, so hold on to your wallet. Our government -- federal, state, and local -- tax everything, and I mean everything, except the air we breath, and they want to do that too.

It saddens me that my grandchildren won't have the opportunities I did when I was coming out of high school with a good education. Look how liberal philosophy has ruined our education system over the last 40 years: We keep spending more with less result per dollar, yet the libs want to spend more.

Our debt burden by then will bankrupt us.

Sad, but true.

Global Shield: MITO takeoffs

Global Shield exercises were conducted by the Air Force in the early 1980s. One of the objectives was to practice getting as many bombers and refueling tankers in the air as quickly as possible. MITO is an acronym for Minimum Interval Take Off. Intervals were usually 15 to 30 seconds.

I had the honor to be included on a Global Shield exercise in 1982. I sat in the engineers seat in the cockpit of the 5th aircraft in our cell, a KC-135 tanker, which accompanied the B-52s to a refueling point near the artic circle. The flight engineer was leaning between the two pilots to help watch; after all, there were four aircraft in front of us. This video is similar to what I experienced (this one looks like Wurtsmith AFB, Mich; I was at Ellsworth AFB, SD.)

Monday, February 14, 2011

Pilots' skill never ceases to amaze

Honduras has one of the most dangerous airports in the world.

From the cockpit

Then there are our top guns:

Friday, February 11, 2011

Our crisis in government spending

Obama's great new ideas: $5 billion so everyone can have high-speed WIRELESS internet; and $10 billion so public service agencies can have high-speed WIRELESS internet (if the first $5 billion includes 98 percent of the country, why do we need another $10 billion?).

I live in a rural area and I have high-speed internet, with speeds up to 12 Mbps available (that's 8 T-1 lines) but it's on a wire. Why do I need, or want, high-speed WIRELESS? Oh, wait! I have a $25 home router that provides this for my laptop.)

Biden: $53 billion on high-speed rail, when the government can't even make Amtrack profitable. High-speed rail won't work in the United States for three reasons: 1) We don't really want it; 2) The distances involved are better served by airlines; and 3) We don't have the money.

They're not even spending my tax dollars anymore. They'll have to borrow this from the Chinese, and then my grandchildren and their children will have to pay it back. If they're lucky enough to get the chance.

And I don't think the GOP is much better: Slapping each other on the back for coming up with $100 billion in budget cuts when the deficit is 15 TIMES more than that. The deficit is $1,500 billion. So they've come up with a way to cut 6.6 percent. I'm singing in the rain, dudes...

There is so much waste in government (like 47 different job training programs that cost $19 billion a year), that politicians and others who claim in the weeks ahead that a $4 trillion annual federal budget can't be cut by hundreds of billions of dollars simply aren't telling the truth.

If the GOP is really serious about cutting spending, why are they ignoring more than $5 billion every year spent on ethanol subsidies that neither help the environment nor save energy; $6.2 billion in tax credits for oil and gas companies flush in record profits; and $3.5 billion for an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet that the Pentagon doesn't want?

We need to stop the insanity now!

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Minot Daily News: Weather Bulletin

I received this via e-mail and thought it interesting enough to repeat here. The text is reportedly from the county emergency manager in Minot, North Dakota. The e-mail has actually -- according to some sources -- been around for a while, and Minot has never had 25 feet in one storm. But the message is clear: Most Americans don't need the Federal government much at all...

Weather Bulletin
Up here in the Northern part of North Dakota we just recovered from a Historic event --- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 25’ of snow drifts and winds to 50 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10 ' s of thousands.
FYI: Obama did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our Mayors or Governor did not blame Obama or anyone else. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC did not visit - or even report on this category 5 snow storm.
Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House. No one looted. Nobody -- I mean nobody -- demanded the government do something. Nobody expected the government to do anything either. No Larry King, No Bill O'Reilly, No Oprah, No Chris Matthews and No Geraldo Rivera. No Sean Penn, No Barbara Streisand, No Brad Pitt, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water. Sent out caravans of SUVs to pluck people out of snow-engulfed cars. The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn’t ask for a penny. Local restaurants made food, and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snow bound families...Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.
We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns. We put on an extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die". We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for "sitting at home" checks. Even though a Category 5 blizzard of this scale is not usual, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.
I hope this gets passed on.
Maybe ...... SOME people will get the message ...... The world does Not owe you a living.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Government and the law of unintended consequences

I generally don't trust government for solutions to problems, and I don't subscribe to the idea that government programs, regulations and intervention in our lives are any kind of solution. It's not. Usually, government makes it worse. Just look at the history of the Community Reinvestment Act and most of our "welfare" programs. Here's a couple more:

PROMISES, PROMISES: 'Widows' tax' lingers
Tens of thousands of the nation's war widows find it perplexing and downright disrespectful to their late military husbands: In order to fully collect on insurance their husbands bought for them when alive, they must marry another man.

Credit card rates at record highs near 15%
Interest rates are now hovering near record highs, at an average rate of 14.72%. And if your credit is bad enough, you could even end up with a rate as high as 59.9% APR. That's because while the CARD Act helped crack down on certain fees and requires more disclosures, it didn't cap every credit card holder's worst enemy: interest rates. Sure, the new rules prevent banks from raising most interest rates retroactively, but there's no limit on the rates they can charge new customers.

In my own personal experience, my credit union raised my interest rate, unannounced, from 5.9 percent to 8.9 percent, just before the CARD act went into effect. Recently, I purchased a TV from Sears with a no-interest-for-15-months deal. When I use the card next time, the interest rate on purchases is 24.95 percent. Incredible. And I have a very high credit score. It will be interesting to see how low I can get them to go; if not, I'll cancel and shop elsewhere...

While some regulation and oversight is necessary, government meddling usually goes way too far, and makes things worse. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Need love? You won't get it from "progressives"

From the Spokane Examiner and Newsbusters:

A video has surfaced showing the love progressives have for conservatives like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and talk show host Glenn Beck.
As hundreds of left wing activists protested a meeting held by the Koch brothers last Sunday, cameras were rolling and individual activists were asked what they would do with Clarence Thomas and other conservatives.

The activists questioned responded by calling for impeachment of Thomas, sending the African-American conservative back into slavery and hanging both him and his wife.

One woman challenged Glenn Beck to a duel with her Glock pistol.

Others called for the execution of Fox News executives.

One activist called for a revolution, similar to what is happening in Egypt.

Newsbusters points out the media's glaring hypocrisy regarding the coverage of the event:
Of course if this had been a Tea Party rally, you wouldn't need to come to NewsBusters to see the video, since it would be running on a loop on every nightly news broadcast. But that said, is it fair to call the entire "progressive movement" racist because of these few loons? Of course not. Still, it does give you quite a taste of the left's ungodly hatred for black conservatives.
Not just black conservatives, but practically anyone to the right of Stalin.
Stranger still is the utter silence from MSNBC, who would use this as a battering ram against conservatives had the roles been reversed. Does Chris Matthews approve of the racist, violent comments made by these activists, considering his recent "over-the-top" attacks against Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck?

Does Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal MSNBC lineup approve of the idea of lynching Clarence Thomas and his wife because they happen to be conservative? Why is no one from that network berating Code Pink representatives over this?

The Blaze notes that 25 protesters were arrested at the event, organized by the progressive organizations Common Cause and Code Pink.
So you "progressives" out there who think it's the right the incites to violence, you need to take a hard look at yourselves first. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Obama, I think, needs to go

First there was the creating of "czars" and the attempt -- so far successful -- of ruling by edict. Take the EPA for example, which has taken upon itself to create regulations not authorized by Congress. Now Obama is threatening a veto if Congress reins in this rule by edict way of doing things.

As Thomas Sowell writes:

In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has expanded its definition of "discrimination" to include things that no one thought was discrimination when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

The Federal Communications Commission is trying to expand its jurisdiction to cover things that were never included in its jurisdiction, and that have no relationship to the reason why the FCC was created in the first place.

Then, when Obama won't enforce Federal law in regards to the borders and immigration, and a state decides to do it themselves, what does he do? Does he step up enforcement? No. He sues Arizona and slaps ass with the President of Mexico? Who's side is this idiot on?

When he imposes a job-killing moratorium on drilling in the Gulf (since then, only one or two permits have been approved by Obama's henchmen), a Federal judge said no. He did it anyway.

Next, a Federal judge rules that Obamacare is unconsitutional. Well, regardless of whether you might agree or disagree, a ruling by a Federal court behooves the administration to alter its programs. Obama has said he will ignore the Federal judge. If Obama is ignoring legal rulings, this is a basis for -- yes -- impeachment.

And we all know (or at least those of us who can see clearly) that Obama's foreign policy has been a nightmare. Now, he's ok with allowing the Muslim Brotherhood -- which actually does have direct ties to 9/11 -- to help form a new government in Egypt. To a known terrorist organization, of all things. Ah, but only if they promise to give up violence. Fat chance.

His failed fiscal policies, his failed foreign policy, and his outright rejection of Federal law adds up to one thing: when do the impeachment hearings begin?

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Super Bowl and prostitution: No link

I guess it must be an urban myth that Super Bowls attract thousands of prostitutes. So says our elected officials, and the so-called experts. But as usual, these people really don't have any "facts." While this issue may not be that important compared to other issues, what remains is that the experts and officials we rely on really can't be trusted.