How is GM spending your tax dollars? By funneling $41,000 to liberals, including $36,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
The only thing being drained in Washinton DC is the taxpayer.
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Democrats Are Now the National Socialist Party
Today, the Democrats of the United States have fully laid themselves bare. This is not just Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. This is every Democrat in the Senate and 90% of the Democrats in the House of Representatives have demonstrated their naked socialism.
They have acted against the United States Constitution.
They have acted against the consent of the governed.
They are attempting to take over fully one-sixth of the economy; a part of the economy that is world class and in no danger of financial collapse. This is not a “bail out” – this is an unconstitutional takeover of a huge segment of the economy for no other reason than they are socialists and possess the votes in Congress to get it done, damn the rules, damn the people, damn the constitution, damn the republic. The actions the Democrat party have taken in the past year are by any definition totalitarian. I am certain that Jefferson and Jackson are rolling in their graves today.
In short, I see no difference between the Democrats and a National Socialist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialist_party
So, what can the nation do in response to the totalitarian National Socialist Party and their takeover of State and personal sovereignty?
First, it is incumbent upon the States of the United States to engage in a national nullification of the National Socialist Party’s socialization of health care. States, and states alone, are granted the power under the constitution of the United States to regulate both the health care and the insurance provided in their particular state. Every state that values the continuation of the republic should take legislative and executive action immediately to prohibit the Federal government from implementing the health care portions of the National Socialist Party’s socialized medicine program. This should include the following elements:
Assert the State’s preeminence on matters of health care and insurance laws within the State borders; and
Enact nullification laws and prohibitions against the enforcement of unconstitutional Federal laws – that is, criminalize the enforcement of the National Socialist Party’s socialized medicine program within the State.
To the extent this can be done in concert between states, it should be done. Nothing would make me happier than to see several states all pass nullification laws and resolutions on the same day, at the same time.
Second, there is an election a mere six and one half months away. No National Socialist Party member should be re-elected to Congress. Any congressional district or state that re-elects a Democrat should be shunned in every possible way. No visits, no conventions, no investment, no money, no nothing. The home bases of the National Socialist Party must be dead to us. And the new Congress must repeal this scar on the nation, and overrule the expected veto by the National Socialist Party’s leader, Barak Hussein Obama. UPDATE: It occurred to me after writing this that another action a nullification-minded Congress could take would to be to withhold funding for some or all of the activities authorized under this law. Again, it would face a veto, but budget bills can and do get passed as overrides to a veto.
Third, even with the expected veto, a mere two thirds majorities in both houses of Congress (and without the approval of the President required) may propose an Amendment to the constitution of the United States that would repeal the National Socialist Party’s healthcare takeover. Thirty eight of the states would be required to vote in favor of the amendment for it to become the supreme law of the land.
Fourth, there are two opportunities to mount of constitutional challenges against the National Socialist Party’s socialized health care takeover.
One path of objection is the nature in which the House passed its approval of their version of the bill. Because the House added amendments or stipulations to the bill prior to its being signed into law, the identical bill was not passed by both houses of Congress, thus the President was never constitutionally presented with a bill that passed both houses of Congress, and thus there was nothing for the President to sign.
The next path of objection is a challenge on the constitutionality of the most socialistic provisions of the law; however, it is questionable when such an objection would be ripe for court review because there is a significant delay in the implementation of most of totalitarian provisions. However, when such a case or controversy becomes ripe, much of the law violates the first Article and second Articles and the ninth and tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Beyond these, there is always the Declaration of Independence. The states created the Federal form of government, and the states can opt out of it. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not superseded by the Constitution – it remains the enacting document whereby the colonies declared independence in the name of the united States of America. The principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are both universal and eternal:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
They have acted against the United States Constitution.
They have acted against the consent of the governed.
They are attempting to take over fully one-sixth of the economy; a part of the economy that is world class and in no danger of financial collapse. This is not a “bail out” – this is an unconstitutional takeover of a huge segment of the economy for no other reason than they are socialists and possess the votes in Congress to get it done, damn the rules, damn the people, damn the constitution, damn the republic. The actions the Democrat party have taken in the past year are by any definition totalitarian. I am certain that Jefferson and Jackson are rolling in their graves today.
In short, I see no difference between the Democrats and a National Socialist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_socialist_party
So, what can the nation do in response to the totalitarian National Socialist Party and their takeover of State and personal sovereignty?
First, it is incumbent upon the States of the United States to engage in a national nullification of the National Socialist Party’s socialization of health care. States, and states alone, are granted the power under the constitution of the United States to regulate both the health care and the insurance provided in their particular state. Every state that values the continuation of the republic should take legislative and executive action immediately to prohibit the Federal government from implementing the health care portions of the National Socialist Party’s socialized medicine program. This should include the following elements:
Assert the State’s preeminence on matters of health care and insurance laws within the State borders; and
Enact nullification laws and prohibitions against the enforcement of unconstitutional Federal laws – that is, criminalize the enforcement of the National Socialist Party’s socialized medicine program within the State.
To the extent this can be done in concert between states, it should be done. Nothing would make me happier than to see several states all pass nullification laws and resolutions on the same day, at the same time.
Second, there is an election a mere six and one half months away. No National Socialist Party member should be re-elected to Congress. Any congressional district or state that re-elects a Democrat should be shunned in every possible way. No visits, no conventions, no investment, no money, no nothing. The home bases of the National Socialist Party must be dead to us. And the new Congress must repeal this scar on the nation, and overrule the expected veto by the National Socialist Party’s leader, Barak Hussein Obama. UPDATE: It occurred to me after writing this that another action a nullification-minded Congress could take would to be to withhold funding for some or all of the activities authorized under this law. Again, it would face a veto, but budget bills can and do get passed as overrides to a veto.
Third, even with the expected veto, a mere two thirds majorities in both houses of Congress (and without the approval of the President required) may propose an Amendment to the constitution of the United States that would repeal the National Socialist Party’s healthcare takeover. Thirty eight of the states would be required to vote in favor of the amendment for it to become the supreme law of the land.
Fourth, there are two opportunities to mount of constitutional challenges against the National Socialist Party’s socialized health care takeover.
One path of objection is the nature in which the House passed its approval of their version of the bill. Because the House added amendments or stipulations to the bill prior to its being signed into law, the identical bill was not passed by both houses of Congress, thus the President was never constitutionally presented with a bill that passed both houses of Congress, and thus there was nothing for the President to sign.
The next path of objection is a challenge on the constitutionality of the most socialistic provisions of the law; however, it is questionable when such an objection would be ripe for court review because there is a significant delay in the implementation of most of totalitarian provisions. However, when such a case or controversy becomes ripe, much of the law violates the first Article and second Articles and the ninth and tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Beyond these, there is always the Declaration of Independence. The states created the Federal form of government, and the states can opt out of it. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not superseded by the Constitution – it remains the enacting document whereby the colonies declared independence in the name of the united States of America. The principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are both universal and eternal:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Epic Threat Weekend
This weekend is a huge pivot point for the future of the United States and the Obama-Reid-Pelosi government takeover plan for 17% of the economy.
In their typically deceptive way, the Democrats have pointed to the crushing amount of unfunded future "obligations" imposed on the projected Federal budgets by the socialist Medicare program, and then said they needed to tackle the cause of this burden: private health insurance. Talk about kicking the dog because the cat made a mess.
Certainly the only completely wrong way to reduce the future costs of socialized medicine is to create more socialized medicine.
I am left to ponder the question: Do we need health care insurance reform, or do we really need government reformed?
In their typically deceptive way, the Democrats have pointed to the crushing amount of unfunded future "obligations" imposed on the projected Federal budgets by the socialist Medicare program, and then said they needed to tackle the cause of this burden: private health insurance. Talk about kicking the dog because the cat made a mess.
Certainly the only completely wrong way to reduce the future costs of socialized medicine is to create more socialized medicine.
I am left to ponder the question: Do we need health care insurance reform, or do we really need government reformed?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Inexorable Force of the Market and the Unbearable Weight of Government
In the ongoing debate regarding the Democrat's nationalization of health care, precious little time is being focused on a discussion of the actual market changes that will occur as a result of the passage and implementation of this unconstitutional piece of legislation.
What today’s Democrats, and believers in Government action of all stripes, believe is that the
market is like a giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man – giant, lumbering, and able to withstand nearly any amount of central committee diktats without really changing either its nature or behavior. Of course, the real-life evidence is that the market is agile, responsive, demanding, fickle, and smarter than bureaucrats.
Tinkering with reimbursement rates on socialized medicine programs in an effort to realize “savings” to government bodies already occurs. The effect of the tinkering is that it shrinks the supply of goods and services being bought by the socialized medicine program recipients.
In a self-regulating market, a decrease in supply will result in an increase in prices, which will decrease the total demand for the product or service, and the market will find its equilibrium at the new higher price. However, in a world of government price controls, such as the reimbursement rates for prescription drugs in a Medicare plan, while the supply is decreasing, the price cannot change which inevitable leads to rationing or shortages. Demand will outstrip supply.
What the government relies on in this scenario is a belief that businesses are irrational – they will conduct their primary business in a way that causes financial loss. As we are seeing now in Washington state, several pharmacy chains are ceasing to fill new Medicare prescriptions because they lose money on the deal.
What is a Democrat to do when her great economic schemes wash up on the rocks of reality? Step 1 is denial. “Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need."
Step 2 is anger. “Insurance profits are bad for my health.” And we are being defrauded by “fly by night operators.”
Step 3 is more government diktats. Hey, “we won the election.”
Soon, Washington state will make accepting Medicare prescriptions mandatory for a pharmacy license. Democrats are happy to force people to do things as a “cost of doing business.” In practical respects, this means costs for things that are not Medicare prescriptions will go up. This is an indirect tax on all consumers at the pharmacy, including food and medicine brought to you by enlightened bureaucrats.
More philosophically, being forced to do business in a manner that is not a purely voluntary transaction is slavery. Being forced to do things because the government says you should (like buying health insurance whether you want to or not) is slavery. Even a fifth grader knows the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery. The question is: are Democrats smarter than a fifth grader.
What today’s Democrats, and believers in Government action of all stripes, believe is that the
market is like a giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man – giant, lumbering, and able to withstand nearly any amount of central committee diktats without really changing either its nature or behavior. Of course, the real-life evidence is that the market is agile, responsive, demanding, fickle, and smarter than bureaucrats.Tinkering with reimbursement rates on socialized medicine programs in an effort to realize “savings” to government bodies already occurs. The effect of the tinkering is that it shrinks the supply of goods and services being bought by the socialized medicine program recipients.
In a self-regulating market, a decrease in supply will result in an increase in prices, which will decrease the total demand for the product or service, and the market will find its equilibrium at the new higher price. However, in a world of government price controls, such as the reimbursement rates for prescription drugs in a Medicare plan, while the supply is decreasing, the price cannot change which inevitable leads to rationing or shortages. Demand will outstrip supply.
What the government relies on in this scenario is a belief that businesses are irrational – they will conduct their primary business in a way that causes financial loss. As we are seeing now in Washington state, several pharmacy chains are ceasing to fill new Medicare prescriptions because they lose money on the deal.
What is a Democrat to do when her great economic schemes wash up on the rocks of reality? Step 1 is denial. “Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need."
Step 2 is anger. “Insurance profits are bad for my health.” And we are being defrauded by “fly by night operators.”
Step 3 is more government diktats. Hey, “we won the election.”
Soon, Washington state will make accepting Medicare prescriptions mandatory for a pharmacy license. Democrats are happy to force people to do things as a “cost of doing business.” In practical respects, this means costs for things that are not Medicare prescriptions will go up. This is an indirect tax on all consumers at the pharmacy, including food and medicine brought to you by enlightened bureaucrats.
More philosophically, being forced to do business in a manner that is not a purely voluntary transaction is slavery. Being forced to do things because the government says you should (like buying health insurance whether you want to or not) is slavery. Even a fifth grader knows the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery. The question is: are Democrats smarter than a fifth grader.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Inconvenient Truths That Are Actually True
Barak Obama’s budget deficit for this year alone will turn out to be greater than any of Bill Clinton’s entire budgets.
WWF’s panicked television commercials notwithstanding, Polar Bears are not an endangered species. Not even the eco-lunies in Barak Obama’s administration will stop Eskimos from hunting some of the estimated 25,000 polar bears.
RINO Rep. Pete King (R-NY) introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, H.R. 2159, which gives the attorney general the power to deny a person the right to buy a gun if the AG "determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." This horribly vague language is clearly an infringement on the American citizens’ 2nd Amendment Rights and doubly worrisome since Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano recently issued a report stating that all persons who believe in a limited federal government or oppose abortion are likely terrorists.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is lying about the content of her briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques. Democrats are starting to protect their own interests in this affair, at the expense of Speaker Nannystate.
College is not for everyone. The States would do well to start issuing certifications of competency based on objective testing in specific areas instead of making more and more students bear the expense of a university education.
In this, the coldest spring in recent memory, three eco-warriors intended to sail from Plymouth, England to Greenland in a carbon-emission-free yacht – followed by schools all over England to raise awareness of “global warming”. Can you guess where this is going? Only 400 miles along in their journey, they had to be rescued by the crew of the Overseas Yellowstone – an oil tanker.
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." --U.S. Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
Hattip to patriotpost.us
WWF’s panicked television commercials notwithstanding, Polar Bears are not an endangered species. Not even the eco-lunies in Barak Obama’s administration will stop Eskimos from hunting some of the estimated 25,000 polar bears.
RINO Rep. Pete King (R-NY) introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, H.R. 2159, which gives the attorney general the power to deny a person the right to buy a gun if the AG "determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." This horribly vague language is clearly an infringement on the American citizens’ 2nd Amendment Rights and doubly worrisome since Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano recently issued a report stating that all persons who believe in a limited federal government or oppose abortion are likely terrorists.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is lying about the content of her briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques. Democrats are starting to protect their own interests in this affair, at the expense of Speaker Nannystate.
College is not for everyone. The States would do well to start issuing certifications of competency based on objective testing in specific areas instead of making more and more students bear the expense of a university education.
In this, the coldest spring in recent memory, three eco-warriors intended to sail from Plymouth, England to Greenland in a carbon-emission-free yacht – followed by schools all over England to raise awareness of “global warming”. Can you guess where this is going? Only 400 miles along in their journey, they had to be rescued by the crew of the Overseas Yellowstone – an oil tanker.
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." --U.S. Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
Hattip to patriotpost.us
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Fascist Quote of the Day
Sounding like other fascists that came before her, Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, said the following on April 10, 2008 on the Good Morning America show:
“We don’t want to take their guns away, [but] we want [firearms] registered."
“We don’t want [firearms] crossing state lines.”
“We need to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.”
What “misconceptions” are “the people” laboring under? Are we laboring under a misconception that the gun registration is the first step to prohibition?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal".
– Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! The world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
Are we laboring under a misconception that those in power do not want an armed citizenry?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle
"If the citizenry disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin
We citizens would do well to recall the words of the United States’ greatest President on the matter of gun ownership.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wago,n and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.
The liberal’s favorite commentator on original intent, Thomas Jefferson, said this about an individual's right of gun ownership:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
America, who do you trust with protecting your liberty? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on one side, or Nancy Pelosi and Janet Reno on the other?
There is one absolute truth that must be discerned from the whole of history as it related to the relationship between government and its citizens: Citizens must jealously guard all of its liberties against any encroachment, or the citizens will surely be robbed of liberty by the government.
“We don’t want to take their guns away, [but] we want [firearms] registered."
“We don’t want [firearms] crossing state lines.”
“We need to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.”
What “misconceptions” are “the people” laboring under? Are we laboring under a misconception that the gun registration is the first step to prohibition?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal".
– Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! The world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
Are we laboring under a misconception that those in power do not want an armed citizenry?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle
"If the citizenry disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin
We citizens would do well to recall the words of the United States’ greatest President on the matter of gun ownership.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wago,n and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.
The liberal’s favorite commentator on original intent, Thomas Jefferson, said this about an individual's right of gun ownership:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
America, who do you trust with protecting your liberty? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on one side, or Nancy Pelosi and Janet Reno on the other?
There is one absolute truth that must be discerned from the whole of history as it related to the relationship between government and its citizens: Citizens must jealously guard all of its liberties against any encroachment, or the citizens will surely be robbed of liberty by the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
