Various thoughts about the Trump impeachment

As I write this it's 1:35 a.m. and it's all over but the cryin'.  Sometime in the next eighteen hours will likely come the final vote on Impeachment 2020 and the end of this mess.  Donald John Trump will remain President of the United States for another year and quite possibly more than that.

I've never doubted the outcome.  Trump had this in the bag on a party-line vote alone.  But I never thought that the final days of this fiasco would be such a bewildering demonstration of both brilliance and ignorance.  This impeachment will be studied for generations to come about how not to impeach, as well as how to effectively counter one.

So, admitting that I only took time to watch the trial proceedings itself during the past few days, here are some sundry musings...

1.  "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are not impeachable offenses.  I don't even know what the hell "obstruction of Congress" is supposed to mean in this context.

2.  There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in coming days and weeks about the issue of witnesses during the Senate trial phase.  Namely, about the House impeachment managers wanting John Bolton to testify.  They are forgetting that witnesses had already testified during the impeachment hearings.

3.  The trial is based on testimony and evidence already presented and entered into record during the House impeachment proceedings.  The Senate trial is absolutely not the place to introduce new witnesses and evidence.

4.  The House managers betrayed a lack of faith in their own case by demanding new witnesses this late in the game.

5.  The table at which the Trump counsel sat looked neat, dignified, corporate, razor-focused and serious.  Meanwhile the table of the House managers resembled a cram session of some college frat house, all that's missing are the boxes of cold pizza.

6.  Speaking of Trump's legal representation, any reputable law professor should make required viewing of the performance of Sekulow, Dershowitz, Philbin et al.  They have 10000% been the model of what competent attorneys should be in regard to the interest of the client.

7.  In stark contrast, the House managers' case has been very little apart from retread of the past three months, excruciatingly drawn out, absent any fresh or sound legal argument, and loaded with weary political rhetoric.

8.  Okay, this one sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  During this final day of Senate questioning I heard Adam Schiff and the other House managers insist that they want a "fair trial", hence more witnesses.  They were completely ignoring the basic underpinnings of how the trial process under United States law works and has always been intended to work.  The American courtroom is an adversarial arena, prosecutor versus defendant, and the onus is on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.  Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler and the rest of the managers have instead all along played this as if it's up to Trump himself to provide evidence and testimony that he's guilty.  Trump has not done this.  Neither is any other defendant under American law obligated to so testify against himself or herself.  I think during the second half of the impeachment trial when it became glaringly obvious that theirs was a lost cause, the managers dropped even a semblance of pretending they wanted a "fair trial" and began attempting to rig the game.  Hence, trying to bring John Bolton into the mix.  That alone screamed how much of a sham this impeachment has been from the beginning.

9.  The House managers should be really thankful that they didn't get witnesses during the Senate trial.  Not I, or any criminal law expert, or sane American for that matter, would not think for an iota of a moment that the Trump team would NOT pounce and begin calling witnesses of their own.  And it would be an unprecedented fiasco.  Indeed, potentially calling Hunter Biden to take the stand, and maybe even Adam Schiff himself, the "whistleblower", former Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden... the Trump counsel would find any and every reason to have them sworn and testify on the stand.  And the result would be a crippling blow to the Democrat Party from which it might never recover.

10.  I am chuckling at the ignorance many are radiating tonight, that in the event of a 50-50 tie on the witnesses issue, how Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will cast the deciding vote.  Roberts is not a member of the Senate.  He represents an entirely separate branch of government.  If fair is truly fair, then Vice President Pence will break the tie and some will say that Trump himself would be entitled to the vote.

11.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go down as the conductor of the sloppiest, most mismanaged prosecution effort in the history of anything.  Had this been a criminal proceeding, the jury would have spent five minutes before returning a "not guilty" verdict.  She had her eyes on the prize but had no vision whatsoever of how to achieve it.

12.  I expect that this coming Tuesday night's State of the Union address is gonna be a LOT of fun to behold.

So much else that could come to mind, but it's late already.  Maybe better legal minds than mine can remark on whatever I've missed here.

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

Internet sales taxes: Does the United States Senate NOT understand the Constitution?

A short while ago the members of the United States Senate voted 70 to 24 to pass the "Marketplace Fairness Act": AKA "Internet sales taxes".

The Senate has approved collecting taxes on goods sold on the Internet.  We'll examine that in just a sec.

("Marketplace Fairness Act"?  God, I hate how these people try to govern by emotion instead of intelligence...)

Anyone who voted for this bill should be removed from office at the earliest possible legal opportunity.  For one thing, it is insanity for government to be levying more taxes upon us at a time when you and I and most other Americans are being obligated to tighten our belts.  How much more do our supposed "representatives" believe we can take?

But what is most on my mind tonight is how this bill is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States.

According to Article One, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate n the House..."

Why then is a bill for raising revenue now originating in the Senate and not only that but has been approved??

I do not have time to watch C-SPAN but I wonder: were there any senators who brought up this fact during debate on the bill?

In a sane world, the House of Representatives would reject the bill from even being admitted into its presence, given how it's unconstitutional.  But I seriously doubt that will happen (though it should).  Barring that, the House should overwhelmingly defeat it.  If it does pass though and President Obama signs it, the obvious thing in this blogger's mind is that the Supreme Court should strike it down.

The Supreme Court shouldn't have to do that though, given that any fifth grader would tell you that the bill has been unconstitutional to begin with.

Y'know, there could be a lot of trouble saved if those in government just followed the directions instead of pulling stuff like this out of their collective ass...

Read More

"Senator" Feinstein wants violent video game control

Somebody educate me: how do people like Dianne Feinstein get elected to anything whatsoever? Feinstein shouldn't be trusted with city sanitation manager, much less United States Senator.

Having failed in her bid to ban "assault weapons" (there is no such thing, incidentally) Demented Dianne has now decided that violent video games must be controlled and regulated by act of Congress.

From the article at VentureBeat...

Speaking to an audience of 500 people in her hometown of San Francisco, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that game publishers need to make voluntary actions to avoid glorifying guns and violence following the Newtown elementary school massacre in December.

She noted that Congress would take action if the industry didn’t do something, according to the Associated Press.

“If Sandy Hook doesn’t [make game publishers change] … then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future,” said Feinstein.

She went on to claim that video games play “a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that.”

Uhhhhh... somebody should inform Senator Feinstein that ever since the introduction of first-person shooters and other violent video games in the early Nineties, mass killings HAVE BECOME MUCH LESS COMMON!  There is no correlation at all... none... between the pervasiveness of violent games and increase in crime.  If there is any relation between them at all, it could in fact be argued that such games have decreased crime, not intensified it.

For levity's sake, here is that pic of Feinstein in place of Doom's Marine guy from that Photoshop job I made of Obama two months ago...

 DOOM 2013: Where the insanest place is behind a Senator from California.

This is the same woman who last month claimed that all veterans of the United States military are "mentally ill" and thus should not be allowed to own firearms.

I would also be remiss in my duty as a blogger if it were not noted that earlier this year Feinstein expressed a desire to deprive the American citizenry of all their guns except for her own and those of other government officials (and yes, she owns a gun folks).

I am going to posit something: that the Founding Fathers had exceedingly prescient foresight when they wrote the Second Amendment.  If nothing else it is a last resort deterrent against the machinations of the power mad and the direly insane.  The latter of which is represented by Dianne Feinstein and too many others in the halls of Congress.

No, I'm not suggesting anything.  Just stating that We The People are our own best scare tactic that should give pause to the truly evil.

EDIT 11:35 p.m. EST:  It's not about Dianne Feinstein per se, but Kotaku has posted a terrific and timely piece by Christian Allen.  Allen has worked on the Ghost Recon franchise as well as Halo: Reach and many other successful video game projects.  Titled "I'm a Game Designer. I'm a Gun Owner. It's Time To End All This 'Us vs. Them'", his essay delves into his life-long experience with firearms and his involvement with producing many violent video games.  There's some harsh language so be warned.  Interestingly, much of it is aimed (no pun intended) at the National Rifle Association...

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

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

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

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

Rest in peace Senator Robert Byrd

There's not a town in West Virginia that doesn't already have a bridge or a horse trough named after him... so how are they going to memorialize Robert Byrd?

His propensity toward pork barrel spending always irked me. And he was in the Senate way, way too long: nobody has any bidness holding the same elected office for 52 years.

But I must admit: I did have some admiration for Robert Byrd. He was certainly one of the better-read and more eloquent holder of high office in the past century of American history.

Thoughts and prayers going out to his family and the people of West Virginia today.

Read More

Elaine Marshall sez: Runoff would hurt Democrats' chance at Senate seat

Ya see, it's crap like this that makes me despise the Seventeenth Amendment and everything about it.

The United States Senate is supposed to represent the states. Up 'til 1913, it was the individual state legislatures that elected their respective senators. Then the Seventeenth Amendment was passed and made the Senate a popularly-elected office.

And that was the beginning of the real modern era of dirty politics and corruption, in my book.

We had our primary elections here in North Carolina today. Incumbent U.S. Senator Richard Burr won the Republican nomination. He'll be going against whoever comes out of the runoff set for June 22nd against Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham from the Democrat party.

Elaine Marshall ain't happy. And she wants Cal Cunningham to drop out already... for the good of the Democrats. From WRAL's website...

"I think not having a runoff is in the Democratic Party's long-range best interests," Marshall said. "(We should be) focusing on the target, which is getting this (Senate) seat for the Democratic Party. So, continuing to fight among ourselves does not get us to the point where we need to be."

Ummmm... excuse me, Mrs. Marshall: the seat of United States Senator from North Carolina doesn't belong to the Democrat party, the Republican party or ANY party! It belongs to the people. It is meant to represent them as a state in the Senate.

Not this office, or any other, was ever meant by the Founding Fathers to be considered spoils of political war.

And I would be just as honked-off angry if any Republican had said likewise.

There is a disconnect between the people and the politicians in this country, friends and neighbors. You know it. I know it. And it's a damn shame that apparently so few will openly and brazenly admit that the vast majority of those involved in politics large and small do NOT deserve our vote!

But it's a fleeting, precious and scarce commodity when one of this sort does us the favor of opening his or her mouth and stating the obvious.

I have not chosen whether or not I will cast a vote for Richard Burr this November. But I can most definitely assure everyone that I will not be casting any vote for Elaine Marshall.

(Thanks for the heads-up and link to lifelong friend and brother in much Chad Austin, who is alleging that he will begin blogging again in the near future...)

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

Scott Brown, the Republican Senator-elect, favors abortion "rights"

Read about it here.

How the hell is this going to make him any different than Ted Kennedy?

"But Chris, he couldn't get elected in Massachusetts if he were pro-life!"

There are more important things in this world than "getting elected".

I have said it before and I will say it again: the vast majority of the Republican party's leadership and elected officials do not care one iota about the abortion issue. And if they do, it's only because it never ceases to provide a carrot that gets to be dangled in front of "the faithful" to keep them voting GOP in elections.

It just so happened that this time the carrot was "health care reform", and that to many people that is more important than the abortion issue. Rather telling also, that Brown has publicly said he doesn't want the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade... and that alone tells me how much regard Brown has for the Constitution. A wiser person would have said that Roe v. Wade is the worst "legislation from the bench" ever and that abortion must be decided by the states for themselves and not the federal judiciary.

Read More

Senate election in Massachusetts cries out for 17th Amendment repeal

I don't live in Massachusetts so yesterday's special election that saw Scott Brown win the seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy didn't hold any interest for me. But I'd be deaf and blind not to know about the ridiculous amount of passion that's built up over this election in the past few weeks and months.

Some are saying that Brown won because "the independents are angry". Which in my mind begs the question: was Ted Kennedy only winning those unconscionably numerous terms of office because he benefited from straight-ticket voting: something that, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't an option in yesterday's election? Seems to me that's an insult to ol' Teddy's memory: as if openly admitting that he couldn't win election on his own merit but rather had to ride the coattails of the Democrat Party.

I've never been in favor of allowing straight-ticket voting anyway. If you're going to the polls to cast a ballot, you should be compelled to think long and hard about who exactly you're voting for. Voting is a right, but it's one bought with too much precious blood to be an overly convenient one.

Anyhoo, the real reason why I'm not really feelin' anything one way or the other about this election is because in the saner world of another time, this election wouldn't have happened and Ted Kennedy likely would never have gotten close to a Senate seat anyway. Because before the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, senators were elected by the state legislatures! The Founders meant for the House to represent the people and for the Senate to represent the states. It's the way it was until 1912 when the Seventeenth was ratified and senators were elected by popular vote.

Sure, there were problems with the previous method of electing senators. But you tell me: could it possibly have been any worse than the dirty, corrupt slugfest that modern Senate campaigns have become?

Consider this also: would something like "health care reform" stand even a remote chance of becoming an inssue in a Senate made up of members who were sent their by their respective states, rather than be installed (for lack of a better word) by political parties?

The Seventeenth Amendment has proven to be a failure more spectacular than Prohibition. It should be repealed and the election of senators returned to the individual state legislatures.

I wish Scott Brown all the best as he begins serving the people of Massachusetts in the United States Senate. But the fact of the matter remains: those of his caliber deserve a more dignified way of coming to the Senate.

And we the people deserve that as well.

Read More

Federal health care will violate First Amendment on religious grounds

Old Order Mennonites - more popularly known as the Amish - will be exempted from being required to have health insurance if the so-called "health care reform" going through the House and Senate passes. According to the above-linked story in the Watertown Daily Times out of New York state, there's a "religious conscience" clause that allows Amish and other religious groups to opt-out of the mandated insurance.

How does this not run afoul of the First Amendment, which clearly dictates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?!?

If one group of people is allowed to get out of federal health care because of sincere convictions against such a thing, then all people who object to federalized health care have the moral right to reject it.

I am a follower of Christ who belongs to no particular denomination. And I say from the bottom of my heart that federal government-run health care sucks donkeys balls to no end.

I'm gonna be exempt too. And if Obama and Hillary want to fine me for not playing with them, then I'll kindly tell them that they can go to hell.

Read More

Something about "health care reform" that isn't asked enough...

Why should we believe that the representatives and senators who are most pushing "health care reform" are going to want to have the same government health care that the rest of us are going to be forced to endure?

Read More

"Health care reform" bill passes in House, BUT...

...it MIGHT not have enough votes to pass in the Senate.

All the same, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it wound up clearing through there as well. And I have never been more supremely disappointed in the House of Representatives than this past weekend for passing this.

These are supposed to be men and women of sound mind, great wisdom and far-reaching vision. With very little exception, they are short-sighted and sold out on principle utterly.

Leadership entails having the resolve to say "no" to your own goals and appetites when the world tempts you to say "yes". As it is, there is damned little leadership in American government... and it's an open question as to whether we have any leadership at all, or have in quite a long time.

Read More

U.S. Senate's health care bill: 1,502 pages long

That's gotta be a helluva big hopper that this bill was placed into.

(It would be better for the entire country and our posterity if it had been dumped into a trash can instead.)

S. 1796 has been filed. The Senate's version of "health care reform" is one thousand, five hundred and two pages long.

What the hell is inside that thing?

Here's the link to a PDF file of this monstrosity if you're so inclined.

Read More

Bend over, here it comes again: "Stimulus" deal reached

Awright, I'm prepared to go ahead and say it: the Obama Presidency is already a disaster. And this legislation is gonna be about as successful as the Smoot-Hawley Act.

Word out of D.C. tonight is that a tentative agreement on the "stimulus" package has been reached in the Senate. It's probably going to be enacted law over the weekend or soon afterward.

Said "stimulus" is going to cost me and you, Fellow Taxpayer...

$780,000,000,000

According to one senator, James Inhofe out of Oklahoma, the bill is only 7% stimulating and the rest of it is just more spending.

I remember the big budget battle in 1993. It's what really started opening my eyes on all the waste that goes on in the federal government. And I never thought that I would see anything that outrageous again.

If the phone lines to Washington D.C. don't burn up with angry calls starting tonight and into the next several days, if this thing passes, well... I can't help but wonder if this might even eclipse Smoot-Hawley in terms of economic destruction.

But on the bright side of things, at least Matthew Lesko will have plenty of new government money to stay happy for a good looooong time...

Read More