Commentary: The Boredom Machine

Ruins of the Capitol
from the video game Fallout 3

It's been several hours since some semblance of a historical event transpired here in America: Kevin McCarthy was ousted from being Speaker of the House in the House of Representatives.  It's the first time that's ever happened.  McCarthy is now third place in being shortest term of office for a speaker.

I've taken a peak at some of the more prominent online news and politics forums.  And this has obviously been an event arousing considerable discussion, anger, and triumph.

But the best I've been able muster up is an indifferent shrug. 

Once upon a time, I would be following the ouster of Kevin McCarthy with intense interest.  It IS the very first time in American history that a House speaker has been tossed out of the position, after all.  In days past my eyes and ears would be absorbing every scrap of information about what is now happening, collating it all in my brain as fast as it could possibly be done.

But I'm older now.  Presumably wiser.  And definitely more world-weary than three decades ago.  I've seen "leaders" and their parties swept into and out of power for so long, with very little lasting good for the nation, that I'm just plain bored with it all.

Heh.  "I'm so bored with it all."  Those were the final words of Winston Churchill, you might be enlightened to know.

It's much worse now.  The utter mundanity of modern politics.  Especially modern American politics.

I think Donald Trump was the first really brilliant flash of invigoration since Ronald Reagan.  But Trump ultimately failed to counter and rein in the overly-burdensome entrenched institutionalized wickedness that our government has become.  He accomplished some good - the border wall is, or would be anyway, one example - but he surrounded himself with people whose allegiances were with "the machine".  They were not loyal to the American people and their republic.

And now we see "the machine" bearing down on Trump, doing its damndest to squash any possibility of his re-election and retribution.  Take heed, friends and neighbors!  This is what "the machine" can do and will do to any and all challengers to its power and influence.  It will quash its dissidents like vermin... because that's all that we are to them.  Trump?  He's just the biggest person to make an example of.  I can tick off many others who have been besieged and destroyed by the machine for their insolence.

Don't think I'm a Trump uberfan.  You'll never catch me dead in a "Make America Great Again" cap.  I don't have political idols to follow.  But I damn well know what an all-out war to destroy an individual in almost every conceivable way looks like.  If it can happen to one person, it can happen to anyone at all.

This is what modern American politics is not just becoming, it already is.  It has turned into the very thing that our fathers and grandfathers for over two hundred years have fought to keep our country from becoming.

We all know it, even if we refuse to admit it.

This country has wound up with a lifelong chronic liar and a political prostitute in its two highest offices.  And we are supposed to applaud that?

There is now much more spying on regular citizens than the Stasi ever were capable of.  The propaganda of "the machine" has powers that Goebbels never imagined.  Silencing dissent has become a science to the priests of power.

The Internet?  I would tell you to search Google for evidence that its algorithms are biased against all but leftist people and policies, but it's algorithms don't allow for that.  Only a token few results are let slip by.  The machine controls the search engines.  Right now only Twitter is an isle of freedom of ideas and information... but God only knows how long that will last.  Social media?  The day will soon come when I and multitudes of others won't be allowed to post these things.  We'll probably have our accounts deleted.  Made unpersons.  As if we never existed on the Internet at all.  I genuinely wonder if the blog I've maintained for almost twenty years will one day be deleted.  Just one reason why I keep regular backups of it.

Entertainment?  Let's just say I am not a Disney+ subscriber.  I doubt I ever will be.  And I genuinely hate to say that.

All of this and more... much, much more... have turned America into a dreary landscape of tedium and turmoil, populated with spineless thralls.  There is no more vigor on display in this land.  Only the machine and its attendants and the ashen waste they continue to make of our nation.

McCarthy?  His ouster is just one minor episode in the scheme of things.  Nothing substantial will change.  Nothing will be allowed to change.  Not with the machine in control of very nearly everything.

I'm bored with the machine and everything about it.

You want vigor again?  You want real excitement?  You want serious change?

Be of good cheer then.  It is coming, sooner or later.  It is inevitable.  The machine can not survive forever.  It will eventually run out of willing slaves.

And then the blood will flow.  As high as the horses' bridles.

Read More

Senator Burr calls defunding ObamaCare "dumbest idea" ever (this is leadership?)

Longtime readers of this blog know that I don't play the partisan game.  And I haven't bought into the "conservative/liberal" mentality for a very long time.  Regardless of affiliation, we should expect all of our elected officials to put the Constitution and liberty of the American people ahead of their political agendas.

Senator Richard Burr
(North Carolina): Part
of the problem in D.C.

That being said, North Carolina's Senator Richard Burr is now shown be a bitter disappointment.  Burr is choosing capitulation over leadership, and what is easy over what is right.

From the article at The Hill...

Blocking a government funding bill over ObamaCare is "the dumbest idea I've ever heard," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Thursday.

Burr argued stopping ObamaCare's funding is not going to be achievable as long as President Obama is in the White House, and that Republicans risked taking the blame if they forced the government to shut down over the issue.

"I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard," Burr told journalist Todd Zwilich on Thursday. "Listen, as long as Barack Obama is president the Affordable Care Act is gonna be law.

"I think some of these guys need to understand that you shut down the federal government, you better have a specific reason to do it that's achievable," Burr continued. "Defunding the Affordable Care Act is not achievable through shutting down the federal government."

Senator Burr, there are far more important things being threatened by ObamaCare than the federal government.  Implementation of the Affordable Care Act is going to cause a lot of private businesses - both large and small - to close up shop because they can't meet the requirements of this legislation.  You are also forgetting that ObamaCare is already compelling many companies and other organizations to choose between compromising their beliefs or paying exorbitant and unconscionable penalties to the government.

It would be better to have a shutdown of the federal government than to witness a shutdown of hundreds, even thousands of businesses which employ honest and hard-working Americans.  Employment is scarce already.  It will only plummet further if ObamaCare goes into full effect.

The Affordable Care Act should be fought, and fought, and fought again without yielding.  And a person who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution will fight ObamaCare, no matter the political cost or what the United States Supreme Court has ruled about it.  It wasn't the first time that the Supreme Court has erred terribly, and it won't be the last.  The ramifications of ObamaCare will haunt America for generations to come if it is not halted now.  A person of foresight and wisdom will do whatever he or she can to keep that from happening.  Surrendering to an evil thing... and ObamaCare is an evil thing... is not an act of leadership or wisdom.  It is, however, an act of cowardice.

Senator Burr is practically confessing that his loyalty is not to the citizens of North Carolina and all Americans, but to the federal government.  By his statements, Burr demonstrates that he gives a higher priority to the status quo of Washington politics than he does to the liberties, the opportunities and the posterity of we the people.

Burr is not an example of true leadership.  A true leader does what is right, regardless of popularity or politics.  A true leader is a person of conscience, not of convenience or "conventional wisdom".

And Burr is a very poor example of what Republicans profess to stand for.  If the GOP is the alleged party of smaller government, it cannot reconcile that claim with capitulating to the largest takeover of a private industry in American history.  One that will impede on our freedoms, will drive many into bankruptcy and will diminish the quality of health care in this country.  Between this and all the other kowtowing going on in Washington, it's little wonder that an increasing number of Americans see no significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans.  For all intents and purposes it is one-party rule pretending to be two.  And rolling over on ObamaCare - among many other concerns - is proving it.

If it comes down to choosing either the strength of the federal government or the freedom of the American people, I'll choose the American people every time.  So should the members of Congress, and each of their personal political consequence be damned.

Read More

The Iraq War is ten years old today

George W. Bush is the worst President in American history.  In less lucid moments (mostly when hopped-up on allergy medicine) I would write that Barack Obama has been far far worse.  But there would have not been Barack Obama in the White House had Bush the Lesser been a competent leader.

I spent more time than I cared to during the Bush years chronicling and commenting upon that maladministration's screw-ups, and I sure don't want to spend any more time on it than I absolutely must (some readers of this blog have commented that I'm too hard on Obama, even "hateful".  Where were they during this site's first several years?!).  All I will say for now is this: in regards to the Department of Homeland Security: I told y'all so.  Way back in 2001 even, I wrote in a few places that Bush was giving us something in Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency that we would soon come to regret and that in time it would become a tool of harassment by our own government.  Clearly when an active-duty Marine serving in spite of losing both legs to an IED gets humiliated by TSA agents, something is very very wrong.

I also thought that launching a war in Iraq would be unwise and inconsiderate of the larger ramifications.  Saddam Hussein was a grade-A asshole, no doubt about it.  But however evil the man was, the Hussein regime did keep Iraq - a nation cobbled together from remnants of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I - from tearing itself apart through internecine strife and tribal quarrels.  We can blame many of the western leaders, including Winston Churchill,  for setting up that particular board and its inevitable consequences, but I digress...

The country that we insisted be Iraq could - and can - only function when there is a "strongman" figure to keep the ethnicities and sects within its borders from killing each other.  That is the role that Marshal Tito had in Yugoslavia and that is the role that Saddam Hussein had in Iraq.  Just as Yugoslavia imploded into civil war a decade after Tito's death, so would Iraq in the absence of Hussein or a successor just as brutal.  As it is, the United States sought - and claimed - the mantle of strongman over that distant land.

The war itself has cost $1.7 trillion and climbing.  Medical and veterans' benefits will have it costing over $6 trillion across the next forty years.  $490 billion is already owed to veterans.  More than 134,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.  More than four thousand American service personnel have died in Iraq.

Ten years ago we were told that Saddam Hussein was harboring chemical and biological weapons.  There were none.  Ten years ago we were told that Saddam Hussein had conspired with the 9/11 terrorists.  He had not (a theological improbability, that was: Hussein's Iraq was a largely secular state fully at odds with the goal of sharia law which Al-Qaida has sought).  Ten years ago we were told that a democratic Iraq would be the wellspring from which freedom and liberty would burst across the Middle East.

It did not do that either.  Ten years later and as the much-ballyhooed Arab Spring has demonstrated, the Mid-East has far less freedom than before.  Making matters worse is that following the departure of American forces from Iraq, that land will almost certainly become a territory of Iran.  In some ways it already is.

I understand that in this fallen realm of our temporal life that war is going to happen.  It is, after all, a product of human nature: something which beyond the mercy of higher authority is a vile and loathsome thing absent of all virtue.  My friends of more pacifist leanings are blessed with a grace to turn the cheek and look away from the strife of the realm completely.  I however do not have such grace.  Indeed, I am a historian by training: I gave up that grace a long time ago.

So it is that I am not ignorant of war and its place in this world.  But neither is war something which should be entered into on the most flimsy of rationales.  There is nothing glorious or magnificent about war.  Regardless of its cause, war is always... always... a failure on the part of those involved.  War means that a person or persons or even an entire nation can not or will not be persuaded that their actions are wrong and must be made to cease.  That the cost of their failure must now be either surrender or death.

More than 134,000 non-combatants in Iraq, men and women and children, who have died since we first attacked that country ten years ago tonight.  Perhaps it is easy for some to see the numbers and not think much about them. But every one of them was created by God and precious to Him.  Whether they perished at the hands of their own country's soldiers or inadvertently on our part, they deserve better than to be swept away as "collateral damage".

If that doesn't impinge on the conscience, consider the more than four thousand families across America who have lost a loved one in Iraq.  Those men and women, as all who serve in the armed forces of the United States, took a solemn oath to protect and defend this country and her people.  They chose to surrender years of their lives - years which could have been spent in school or starting careers or getting married and having children - to the service of others.

They did so fully aware that the possibility existed that they might be called upon to enter the theaters of war.  That doing so would place their lives in peril.  And yet they volunteered.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that this kind of personal sacrifice demands a lot more respect and even sanctity from our alleged leaders.  A man or woman who puts on the uniform and swears to serve this country is expecting that their time and effort and if need be their very lives will be utilized with deepest wisdom and utmost restraint.

That has not happened in the war with Iraq, ten years old today.  Four thousand of our best and brightest have perished halfway around the world and we've nothing to show for it.  Four thousand brilliant souls, extinguished forever from the Earth.

They deserved better.  We deserve better.

I've only heard one cause for war with Iraq that has had any scrap of fact-based rationale behind it.  It was when President George W. Bush told a crowd that Saddam Hussein "tried to kill my dad."  And yes, Hussein did attempt to do so when the elder Bush visited Kuwait in 1993.  But was that enough reason to commit billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of U.S. service personnel toward removing from power?

A few months after the invasion of Iraq, Bush the Lesser told the militants in Iraq that U.S. forces would not be dislodged.  That they were welcome to try though.  George W. Bush told them to "Bring 'em on."

This is what "Bring 'em on" looks like...

Again, maybe it's just me, but a war is too horrific a thing to justify with a personal vendetta or a temper tantrum.

The Iraq War is ten years old today.  We haven't gained a thing from it.  Lord only knows if we'll have learned anything from it either...

Read More

Could a Cyprus-style banks robbery happen in the U.S.?

This past weekend was spent semi-unplugged.  Heck I didn't know that Miami had beaten UNC for the ACC Basketball Tournament title until late last night!  Since all that mess was happening in Greensboro I drove a hunnerd miles the opposite direction on 220 to do ballroom dancing and general geek-ery with my girlfriend.

But even so, I have been following the mess in Cyprus, where the government is poisoned to confiscate 10% of everyone's bank accounts in an attempt to get bailed out of the monetary mess of its own manufacture.  So much commentary could be made of this: the failure of socialism, the complete failure of the Eurozone as anything remotely a feasible concept, the failure of policies that can only lead to hyper-inflation, the failure to rein-in the "banksters" (i.e. those who see banking as not a sacred trust but an exploitable resource), the failure to hold those most responsible accountable for their own mistakes and misdeeds...

Right now banks across Cyprus are closed until Thursday (at least).  The ATMs are empty or damn near it: an old-fashioned bank run for the 21st Century.  There is now concern that Italy and other countries are considering similar measures.

It was two years ago that I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time.  A book some consider to be semi-science-fiction.  It's now clear to me that what Ayn Rand had written was in fact a horror novel, and not nearly scary enough.  For all the madness that Directive 10-289 embodied, Wesley Mouch knew better than to raid the private bank accounts.  The same cannot be said of too many politicians in Europe and now, little Cyprus could set off financial disaster throughout Europe and around the world.  It might well be the camel that breaks the straw's back.

(Witless warble of words or cryptic commentary with cliche?  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader...)

Could a Cyprus-ish raid on our bank accounts happen here in the good ole' Yoo-Ess of Aye?  Neil Boortz thinks so.  Writing at Townhall.com, Boortz suggests that not only could it happen but that it has been incrementally building up toward such for two decades (at least).  From his essay...

Oddly enough, the people of Cyprus weren’t particularly elated over this move, nor were investors and citizens throughout the Eurozone. Imagine that! Cypriots immediately grabbed their ATM cards and started to withdraw as much money as they could from their accounts. Cash in their hands wouldn’t be hit for 10%. It was clear there would be a run on the banks as soon as they reopened. Now the plan to simply seize individual wealth is being delayed, though not abandoned.

Could it happen here? Well certainly it could. Congress could pass and the President could sign legislation calling for the seizure of 10% of every checking and savings account in every bank in America. This might finally be enough to cause a resurrection, but they could do it. So in America the wealth seizure has to be just a bit more selective and subtle. And that brings us to the warning I’ve been voicing for 20 years.

There's plenty more at the Townhall.com link, including mention of something that has not been remembered nearly enough: the 1993 budget battle in Congress that saw retroactive taxation: something which according to the Constitution should never have happened.  I phoned the office of Steve Neal, my representative at the time.  His lackey listened to me rant about how wrong this was and then told me "well sir that's for the courts to decide."

The courts didn't stop it from happening then.  Anyone wanna bet that a raid on the banks by the government could be stopped now?

Read More

This is Obama's Mariel Boatlift

In 1981, Cuban president Fidel Castro released over a hundred thousand Cubans - many from jails and mental health facilities - who made their way to Florida in what became known as the Mariel Boatlift.

Photo credit: State Archives of Florida

In 2013, United States president Barack Obama this week has directed Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano to release "thousands" of undocumented immigrants - many of which are being held for criminal offenses - from facilities in Florida.  And Texas.  And Arizona.  And Louisiana. And Georgia.  And California.  And probably other states.

This is allegedly because there is no money in the government coffers to pay the ICE agents and the automatic budget cuts (the "sequester") goes into effect this Friday.

The response from the White House today is that we could expect an increase in terrorism and massive illegal immigration.  Yeah that's right: reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country by increasing the number of illegal aliens in the country...

 ...and we'd better do it "or else".

Call it what you will, but I can't see how it's anything but blackmail on a national scale.

In a different time and a better reality, what Obama and Napolitano are doing would be an impeachable offense.  But that was when there was the rule of law in America and not the rule of men.

Nothing good will come of this.  It is an obscene dereliction of duty and forsaking of oaths of office.  And there will be hell to pay.  For the entire country.

Read More

Out-of-whack priorities

Good friend, Baptist minister and wise Christian brother (he's certainly wiser than I shall ever be) James Hodges made an observation earlier today. I'm sharing it here, because in so few words it speaks volumes...

Why should we worry about the 'fiscal cliff' when we have already fallen over the 'moral cliff.'

Unfortunately, all too true.

Perhaps there would be no concern of a "fiscal cliff" at all if we had chosen to long ago steer away from the moral cliff.

Read More

Todd Akin is why the 17th Amendment was always a bad idea

As I intimated in my previous post, I arrived way late to witness the tempest surrounding Todd Akin at the apparent zenith of its wrath. But now that friends have caught me up to speed on it...

Let's ignore for the moment that what Akin said is not an isolated incident. That in fact ridiculous, nonsensical and downright ignorant statements seem to be a chronic malady of those in high office (how Sheila Jackson Lee is still in Congress, I haven't a clue). It's not even the worst thing I've come across said by a politician about rape: the all-time record holder for that has to be Clayton Williams who once remarked that if rape is "inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."

Now that I know what the Akin situation is about, what is most on my mind about it is that this is why the popular election of senators was never a good thing, and why the Seventeenth Amendment needs to be repealed.

I have to point out that the Founders intended for the House to represent the people and for the Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were not to be glorified "congressmen": they were to be chosen by their respective state legislatures.

I can tick off a lot of benefits found in the original system. That it necessitated a state's people to be more aware, more involved and as a consequence tending to be wiser in regard to their local government was one of them. And I've long thought that the legislatural appointment of senators had an elegance to it befitting the wisdom of the Founders.

Look at what popular election of senators has degenerated into: the guttermost disgusting campaigning in American political history, only a hair shy of that for President. We already knew that but the Todd Akin situation has made what should be a matter solely for the state of Missouri and her people... into something of national "importance". Indeed, most of the demands for Akin's withdrawal from his race are from his fellow Republicans who insist that their party's retaking the Senate trumps any and all other considerations.

Good God. Have we really come to this point, as a country? Where we don't even pretend anymore that our politics is anything but a game to be "won" by any means necessary?

This is why the United States is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy. And for once I don't even need both of the "major parties" to make my case. Just one of them is doing it fine enough.

There can be no return to "civility in politics" when the current process itself is codified incivility.

Read More

A question about Paul Ryan

Longtime readers of this blog know that I'm for fiscal conservatism and letting the free market be responsible for itself, without government interference. Meaning that among other things that I've never thought anything favorable about government bailout programs.

A few days ago Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican candidate for President, announced that Paul Ryan would be his running mate in this fall's election.

Paul Ryan is being touted as a "Tea Party conservative".

Okay, well then...

Why should this blogger, or anyone else for that matter, vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket when Ryan:

- voted for the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)

- voted for bailouts of $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler

- voted for bailouts of Bank of America, BB&T, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and other banks

- voted for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

- voted for the insanely expensive Medicare Part D

?

The auto industry bailouts alone have honked me off to no end. As they should every citizen of this country.

So I'm sincerely asking supporters of Paul Ryan: how is his voting record indicative of someone who holds to financially conservative and responsible values? More to the point: why should I or anyone else vote for Ryan based on his record?

Don't even bother offering up bullcrap about "You're voting against Obama". I am not now or ever have voted for Obama. I need to know why I should vote for Romney/Ryan.

Read More

Obama's recess appointments: I smell hypocrisy

So it's coming out that a bunch of Republicans, including senators Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell, are expressing concern about President Obama making recess appointments when the Senate was not in session. Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese is saying that Obama is committing "a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers."

Oh please...

The Justice Department headed by Eric Holder is defending the appointments as legal. Y'know, just like the Justice Department under President George W. Bush defended his firing of the United States attorneys as being legal. Just like John Yoo went out of his way to argue why his boss Bush should be given powers of a dictator in everything but name. Just like Samuel Alito sought to increase the power of the President by means of redefining so-called "signing statements".

But now the shoe is on the other foot. It's a Democrat in the White House. It's a Democrat running the United States Department of Justice. And right on cue, the Republicans are feigning righteous indignation when we all know that they would have been totally down with helping "their own kind" get away with crap like this.

Just another reason why I cannot in any good conscience support either the Democrat or Republican parties.

Read More

The one who voted against war with Japan

Yesterday was the seventieth anniversary of the Empire of Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor: the event that catapulted the United States into World War II. On the following day President Franklin Roosevelt delivered the famous "Infamy Speech" before a Joint Session of Congress. Less than an hour after Roosevelt's address, Congress passed an official declaration of war against Japan.

And it was almost unanimous. The final tally was 388 for war, and 1 against...

Jeannette Rankin, member of the House of Representatives from the state of Montana, was the sole vote against the declaration of war. Rankin was also the first woman elected to Congress. During her previous term in Congress she had also voted against the United States entering what became known as World War I. And in case you're wondering, she was a Republican.

As you can probably imagine, Rankin's stance was roundly unpopular: not just with her constituents back home but all across America. She didn't even bother to run for re-election. She passed away in 1973 at the age of 92.

But as for why Miss Rankin did not vote for the war declaration, I can't but find her rationale to be intriguing...

"As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else."

I must admit: as much as a military response was mandated by the horrific nature of the Pearl Harbor attack, I have to appreciate Jeannette Rankin's rationale. Had women been allowed to serve on the front lines or more to the point, had Rankin been a male... I can't imagine that she would have cast a vote against war. But neither of those happened to have been the case.

I believe that Congress did the right thing by voting for the declaration of war. But I also have to believe that Miss Rankin was acting according to the best of her principles by not voting for that same declaration. That may have conflicted with the demands of those she was elected and sworn to represent... but there I am reminded that ours is a democratically-elected republic and not a pure democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best that man in his limited wisdom has been able to come up with so far as governing himself goes.

Jeannette Rankin's vote against declaring war with Japan is a most curious example of that.

And all of this was seventy years ago today, December the 8th 1941.

Read More

Dear Governor Perdue: What the hell were you thinking?

Bev Perdue should do the right thing and resign as governor of North Carolina. And I am absolutely serious.

If she intended this as a joke, I don't see how it could possibly have been funny at all. It's too scary enough that Perdue conceived of such an unconstitutional and morally wrong idea, let alone verbally articulated it.

Here's what North Carolina's Worst Governor Ever said yesterday at a meeting of the Rotary Club in nearby Cary...

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. You want people who don't worry about the next election."

So Perdue wants to suspend democracy and elections in the name of reigning-in the economy. She said "I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."

Dear Lord, I hope not.

After having listened to the actual audio of Governor Perdue's comments, I'm finding it ever more difficult to believe that this was a suggestion that she was making in jest.

Let's ignore the obvious for a moment: that what Perdue is advocating is nothing short of treason and circumvention of the Constitution by an elected executive in high office and if someone else has a more accurate terminology, I would like to be told of it.

Governor Perdue, the United States is experiencing a very difficult time financially because, in large part, the government has "helped" too much already.

And now you not only want that same government to do more, but be made unaccountable to the voting public as well?

I don't see how anyone who would suggest such a thing should be trusted at all with delegated authority. George W. Bush demonstrated to us that he wasn't fit to be President when he said that he wished he could be "dictator" and just so, Bev Perdue is now demonstrating that she is not fit to be governor of this state.

If she steps aside now, I would have inestimably more respect for the lady. Gauging by what I've been reading so far today, a lot of other people would too.

Read More

A "Super Congress"?! What the...?! Here come the Politburo, and Congress AIN'T suppose to establish a religion!

When the hell do the people of this country once again get representatives who know what "un-constitutional" means enough to not come up with bullsh-t like this?

The Huffington Post was the first place where I found the "Super Congress" referenced. So in case (like me until late last night) you didn't know what the politicians in Washington are now up to: there is a proposal to create a 12-member body comprised of six members from both the House and the Senate... and composed of six members from both major political parties. This "Super Congress" would be capable of over-riding the normal legislative process, all in the name of fixing the United States' monstrous debt problem.

Click here and here to read what others have been arguing about how anti-Constitution and insane this scheme is.

But here is what disturbs me most about this proposal...

THE "SUPER CONGRESS" WOULD OFFICIALLY ESTABLISH THAT TWO POLITICAL PARTIES AND ONLY TWO PARTIES ARE LEGITIMATE, TO THE DETRIMENT OF ALL OTHERS.

Think about it. The "Super Congress" plan gives seats to the Democrats, seats to the Republicans... and ummm... nothing to the unaffiliated or those who have chosen not to align themselves with either of the two major parties.

What is a political party, really? Is it any different from a body of religion? I mean, a political party and a religious denomination share many similarities. They each have their adherents. They each have their beliefs and ideas. But according to the Constitution, Congress cannot endorse any body of belief and faith.

And now there are some who are conspiring to make Congress controlled by a body of belief. Namely, a body of ideologies. Oh yeah, you get to, ahem, "choose" which one of the two that you wanna affiliate yourself with... but how the hell is that really a choice at all?

How the hell is it that the United States government - something which is supposed to derive from a mandate of the people, by the people and for the people - is now poised to be legally controlled NOT by the people, but by two political parties to the exclusion of ALL others?!?

This, is wrong.

And President Barack Obama and the "leaders" in Congress are taking us all on a road that is too damn much like what Russia found itself on about a hundred years ago.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now: the United States now owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least the Soviets had one-party rule and were honest about it.

Read More

"Gerrymandering is okay when WE do it!"

The Republicans in the North Carolina legislature should just say it and get it over with.

Matt Mittan was the first to bring my attention to the just-released maps for North Carolina's newly-redrawn congressional districts.

And how has the GOP now "controlling" (I have never liked how a party "controls" a legislature and I don't see how anyone else should like it either) Raleigh done, following decades of Democrat-led gerrymandering?

By doing their own gerrymandering!

From the original article at Carolina Journal...

(Carolina Journal) Three Democratic incumbents will face a tough re-election fights next year under new congressional maps released today by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The redrawn maps significantly weaken U.S. Reps. Brad Miller, D-13th; Heath Shuler, D-11th; and Larry Kissell, D-8th. Republicans currently have six of 13 congressional seats. If previous voting patterns hold, the GOP could gain a 9-4 or even 10-3 advantage in 2013.

For Shuler’s diminished chances, Reps. Patrick McHenry, R-10th, and Virginia Foxx, R-5th, are the culprits. McHenry’s new district would cut into Buncombe County, a hotbed of Democratic votes, diluting Shuler’s base of support. In addition, Shuler picks up some conservative regions of Foxx’s district.

“The anchor for Democrats in this district has always been Buncombe County,” Davis said. “Not only has half of Buncombe County been put into Congressman McHenry’s safe Republican district, but several of the most Republican counties in the state have been moved from districts held by Congresswoman Foxx and Congressman McHenry to Heath Shuler’s district.”

I almost used the word "chutzpah" to describe what the Republicans in the legislature are doing. But let's call this for what it really is, folks: hypocrisy!

This country is facing trial and tribulation as it has never known in any recent memory. Perhaps any living memory. And the elected politicians continue to play their stupid little games of power: never mind that it was such shenanigans that in large part brought us to this place to begin with!

(Funny thing: I seem to remember many if not most Republican officials in this state complaining about gerrymandering and how they were against it. So what happened? Huh? Hello? Hello? Bueller?)

Read More

Creepy, and all too true...

Read More

About Roger Clemens and Congress...

My final thought for the day:

Why is Roger Clemens in trouble for lying to Congress... when Congress lies to us ALL the time and always gets away with it?

Read More

The ______Act of___ passed by U.S. Senate

That's it. I've had it. Throw the whole sorry lot of 'em out. ALL of them. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. Show them no quarter.

And whoever among our legislators were so irresponsible in voting for this, should have the word "STOOPID" branded into their foreheads so that the rest of humanity will know to steer clear of them forevermore amen.

Call it "The Law With No Name" (sounds like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington directed by Sergio Leone). Nancy Pelosi has brought the House of Representatives back into session for an emergency vote on a bill that, well nobody has any idea what the hell is in this thing. And the Senators who approved it didn't even bother to give it a proper name. It's officially listed as "The ______Act of___".

And if you ask me, this bill is a ________ pile of bull____.

Click on over to Slashdot to read more about this... thing.

(Obviously, the question arises as to whether this bill was read aloud in the Senate... or if it was even read at all.)

Read More

Don't want Obamacare? Convert to Islam or become Amish

I'm thinkin' that everyone now has a perfectly valid and legal reason to tell President Barack Obama to take his crummy "health care reform" and shove it up his ass.

(Oh yeah, that's right: not even Obama and his cronies want Obamacare. They're exempt from it.)

But within the legislation - which the House just re-approved a short while ago - are provisions for conscientious objection to Obamacare because of religion. The legal language seems tailor-made for the Amish (who use the communal resources of their churches to provide for medical care) and for Muslims, for whom insurance is religious taboo.

Since I'm neither Muslim, or a member of any Christian denomination (I still prefer to call myself a follower of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ), I guess that means that I'm screwed, right? Well, who is anyone in this steaming pile of bullshit (that's the very first time that I've used THAT word in any piece of writing, dear readers!) that is our government to tell me or anybody that my or your religion is invalid or "wrong"?

I now declare myself the Reverend Christopher Knight of the Second Church of What's Happening Now. And Obamacare is against the tenets of my creed, so I must be exempt. And I will be exempt, dammit!

And if you too want to stand up to that cocky bastitch in the White House and that deranged *itch of a House Speaker, feel free to do likewise.

Read More

Once more with feeling? House to vote AGAIN on healthcare bill tonight

Because of two items in the reconciliation bill - one of which having to do with Pell grants, which alone made people scratch their heads in wonder about why it was in the legislation to begin with - the House of Representatives will be voting once more on Barack Obama's socialized medicine in order to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions.

Considering how in the past few days a number of representatives who voted "aye" for this monstrosity have had bricks thrown through the windows of their offices and one such congressman had a coffin dumped on the lawn of his house, I have to ponder aloud if such "knock-knock, zoom-zoom affirmation" might result in more than a few of them finally "getting the message" that the American people DO NOT WANT this crap!

Read More

What is "Chutzpah"?

Because I'm feeling extra cranky tonight (and have for the past 24 hours or so)...

"Chutzpah" is a Yiddish word meaning "shameless audacity". It's an olden Hebrew term that in his book The Joys of Yiddish author Leo Rosten describes as "gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible 'guts,' presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to."

So what fits in the category of "chutzpah"?

One example of chutzpah is the child who kills both of his parents, and then throws himself down on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan.

Another example of chutzpah is the "evangelist" who routinely rails against a television station for "promoting dancing, R-rated movies" as being somehow sinful behavior, yet is apparently not bothered by the fact that he gives more than a million dollars of his congregation's money to buy airtime at another television station whose general manager not only promotes the same stuff and worse... but is also a bisexual who regularly gets his jollies by enticing viewers to call in and talk about their sex lives (while never mentioning his own). That would be plenty of chutzpah too.

But right now at this moment, what comes most to mind when I think of chutzpah is the revelation that Congress has voted to impose Obamacare on everyone but NOT those who wrote the #@$%-ing law!

From the article at The New Ledger...

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises — as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation — both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

There is much, much more in Ben Domenech's eyeball-popping writeup at the above link, dear readers.

I guess Orwell had it right: some people are more equal than others.

Read More

Why Republicans WON'T try to repeal health care overhaul

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute has written an essay about the costs of Obamacare, which passed the House last night (and which I nearly reacted to on this blog with a blunt "We are sooo f-cked", before better angels of my nature prevailed).

In his article Tanner makes the following prediction, and I thought it was well worth making note of...

Republicans won't really try to repeal it. Republicans will run this fall on a promise to repeal this deeply unpopular bill, and will likely reap the political advantages of that promise. But in reality there is little chance of their following through. Even if Republicans were to take both houses of Congress, they would still face a presidential veto and a Democratic filibuster.

But more important, once an entitlement is in place, it becomes virtually impossible to take away. The fact that Republicans have been criticizing Obamacare for cutting Medicare shows that they are not really willing to take the heat for cutting people's benefits once they have them — no matter how unaffordable those benefits are. Paul Ryan put forth a serious plan for entitlement reform — and attracted just six co-sponsors at last count. Enough said.

Sadly, I suspect that Tanner will be proven correct about this. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many Republicans are secretly happy that last night's health care "reform" passed and will soon be signed into law by President Obama.

Because the very massive public outcry against this legislation is a huge carrot that a lot - if not most - of the Republicans in or running for high office will be using to lure Americans into "vote for us!" Oh, I'm fairly sure (not positive, but have a gut feeling) that the Republicans will take control of the House and Senate come November. But if there is any effort to repeal Obamacare it will only be a token gesture. There will be some bills passed in Congress, and Obama will veto them all (I doubt there'll be a supermajority in Congress to override that). And then we won't hear anything about it again because the Republicans in general will boo-hoo about "it's too hard for us to fight the veto". And of course they will use that to justify that we the people merely need to elect more Republicans.

And nothing will change.

Fercryingoutloud, the GOP had the White House and both houses of Congress for six years. Did government decrease in size at all during that period?! Hell no it didn't! On the Republicans' watch it increased more than any other time in living memory, until last night. If anyone seriously believes that things will be any different the next time the Republicans "have the power", I've some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell.

The Republicans have been promising to revoke the "right" to abortion for three and a half decades. They haven't done it yet. I'm not entertaining any optimism that they will be more rigorous in ridding us of this latest embiggening of big government.

So let me wrap this up by writing what I perhaps should have said last night, because there are times when a writer has done his absolute best to articulate his sentiments to the fullest but can sincerely go no further without violating the mores of polite society...

We are sooooo fucked.

God help us.

Read More