"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

Will Malven

Once again we see that Democrats in Congress will go to any lengths to prevent the truth from getting out about the Obama-care health care bill now in Congress. Proof once more that Democrats care nothing about the American people or solving their problems, they care only about controlling us.

Roll Call has the low-down on these devils and their efforts to keep the voters out of the loop:

Democrats don't want you to see it because it shows just how screwed up the health care plan really is. It is a bureaucratic nightmare of huge proportions.
July 23, 2009
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff

Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.

The dispute centers on a chart
created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.
The flow chart resembles a game board designed up by some crazed, uninformed, Liberal politician (which of course it was) with a maze of arrows and colored blocks, each of which represents some bureaucratic hurdle consumers must overcome before they receive treatment.

I doubt very seriously the famous cartoonist Rube Goldberg could have designed anything more complicated...or ridiculous.

Governmental interference caused the current financial crisis and Democrats are attempting to solve the problem with governmental interference.

Governmental interference caused the health care crisis and true to form, Democrats are hide bound to "solve" it with...you guessed it...more governmental interference.

Here's a clue to you Democrats out there. No matter how much you wish it were so, the federal government has never accomplished anything better, more efficiently, or cheaper than private enterprise...NEVER!!!

Given that undeniable fact; proven over and over again, why on Earth would anyone look to our federal bureaucracy to solve a problem as complex, far reaching, and intrusive on the individual's privacy as health care?

One can only surmise that it derives from profound and over-arching stupidity. Certainly there appears to be enough of it to go around within the Democrat Party; beginning with our current president and the majority leaders in both houses of Congress.

Well, I'm doing my little part to get the message out to Republicans and all American citizens. With the web and all of the alternate news sources it has, Democrats will fail in this effort to censor Republicans in Congress and once more prove that they oppose the free flow of information of value to their own constituents.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

For Sotomayor speeches over shadow record

Will Malven

These hearings have been a study in circumspection, dissembling, and redefinition. It has been very reminiscent of watching the Clintons' performance during the Whitewater investigations.

It seems that Judge Sotomayor is the most imprecise public speaker in history. Every statement with which she has been confronted she has explained away by saying some variation of "What I really meant to say was..." fill in the blank with whatever explanation is most suited to alleviate the concerns of which ever Senator is doing the asking.

The problem remains, what she actually said in her speeches paints the picture of an arrogant, racist, activist judge who has no problem with imposing "the richness of her experience" or with "making policy" from the bench rather than following the Constitution.

Democrat Senators, President Obama, and even Judge Sotomayor have repeatedly cited her record as a tough law and order judge and former prosecutor as proof that she is suited to occupy Justice Souter's empty chair.

If she was applying for a seat on a lower court, they might be right. She has an admirable record on law and order issues, but her record on individual rights and the protections given all citizens under the Constitution is far more worrying, as exemplified by her latest decision to be overturned by the current Supreme Court (a 5-4 decision). Even those Justices who voted against overturning the Ricci decision were very critical of the manner in which the Sotomayor and her two colleagues reached their decision and the cursory examination given the underlying issues surrounding the case.

The real problem with using her record as a lower court judge however, lies in the constraints or lack thereof which rest on a Supreme Court Justice. As a lower court judge, Sandra Sotomayor was constrained in her decisions and the latitude with which she could stray from established precedent by the decisions and rulings made in the Supreme Court. Her position on any given issue was regulated more by existing law than by any opinion she might personally hold.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Sotomayor will face no such constraints. She may say that the concept of stare decisis carries weight or that previous decisions by the Supreme Court deserve careful consideration, but the truth is that she is not constrained in any way in how she addresses the Constitution or any issue on which a previous bench of justices has ruled.

As a Supreme Court Justice she will be free to impose her personal beliefs on the rest of her fellow American citizens without limit. As an example, if she opposes Second Amendment rights, she can ignore the previous court's Heller decision and rule that no citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment only addressed those right as they impinge on the need for a militia. We have no way of knowing whether she will or not, but she would be well within her rights to do so and in her past rulings she has indicated that she does not hold the Second Amendment in the same esteem that she might the First Amendment.

Because of this almost absolute power and freedom from judicial restraint, her writings and speeches must carry greater weight than those who defend her seem willing to give them.

Sotomayor has been far less than honest during these hearings. Rather than defend what she has said, she has attempted to explain away almost every controversial statement she has made.

She didn't really mean that she "would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experience would make a better decision than a white male," she was just attempting to inspire young Latinas in the audience to aspire to greater heights. Or as she explained it to Senator Cornyn (R-TX) today:

"I didn't disagree with what I understood was the basic premise that Justice O'Connor was making, which was that being a man or a woman doesn't affect the capacity of someone to judge fairly or wisely. What I disagreed was with the literal meaning of her words because neither of us meant the literal meaning of our words. My use of her words was pretty bad in terms of leaving a bad impression. But both of us were talking about the value of experience and the fact that it gives you equal capacity.

She didn't really mean that the Court of Appeals makes law when she said:

"...court of appeals is where policy is made…and I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t “make law,”[dismissive quote motion with hands] I know [laughter] uh…I know. I’m not promoting it I’m not advocating it…I’m, you know...[silly looking conspiratorial grin accompanied with another dismissive hand gesture and a chuckle]."

She actually meant:

"that statement was made absolutely expressly that that was the context of the kind of policy I was talking about, which is the ramifications of a precedent on all similar cases."

Okay..........hmmm....maybe she's telling the truth, although her facial expressions and general demeanor when she made those statements lend to my skepticism, but what has become abundantly clear is that her thinking is sloppy.

Sotomayor is careless in her speech and imprecise in her reasoning. She seemingly appears to be prone to saying one thing while meaning something completely different. For that reason, she has been forced to explain repeatedly statements which, on the surface at least, seem to run contrary to the charge the Constitution lays upon each Justice to interpret the law, not make it.

One thing is obvious; she is going to be confirmed rather handily and not just by Democrats. There are a number of Republicans who seem more interested in scoring points with their constituents prior to voting for Judge Sotomayor than they are in stopping someone who will endanger our nation by creating law from the bench.

It is disturbing that someone like Sandra Sotomayor who is clearly a tool of Obama and like minded people, who prefer to rule rather than govern, can be seated on the highest court in the land, but it is reassuring that, at least in this case, she will be replacing a justice who was very much of a like mind.

Unless Justice Kennedy loses his nerve and his independence, the balance on the court will remain unchanged. Under this President that is a good thing, because he aspires to accrue greater power than any of his predecessors since Roosevelt.

There will be further battles in the future. As Obama's policies continue to fail and his popularity and that of Democrats in Congress continues to fall, there will be mounting pressure from dissatisfied Democrat constituents to alter the course upon which they have steered this American ship of state.

Perhaps then a candidate like Judge Sotomayor will face a less certain future than she herself faces. Perhaps Democrat members of Congress, fearing for their careers and reelection, will begin to have second thoughts about who the Empty Suit in Chief is nominating for the Supreme Court.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Democrats siding with Terrorists

Will Malven

There has been a huge kerfuffle in the press and within the Democrat Party over the revelation, by CIA Director and Democrat hack, Leon Panetta that the CIA withheld information on a secret program and that Vice President Dick Cheney had instructed them to do so...except we now know that the program never got beyond the planning stage and that the idea...and that's all it was...was to organize special ops groups to kill or capture members of the al Qaeda leadership...truly a noble idea if I've ever heard one.

So why are Democrats in Congress so outraged that this proposal, and that's all it ever was, came about? Why the self-righteous indignation over the suggestion that the CIA set out to kill or capture the people responsible for all of the most deadly and heinous attempts to kill Americans?
Well, we know that during the most difficult days of the war in Iraq they were feeding talking points and propaganda to the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that the voice of the radical Muslim movement, Al Jazeera, has been quoting them in their efforts to excite anti-American sentiment among the general Muslim population, so it comes as no surprise that Democrats are now taking the side of the terrorists against America.

It is only reasonable to assume that if the leadership of the Democrat Party are outraged that Dick Cheney wanted to kill the leaders of al Qaeda and didn't want to tell the sieve known as the United States Congress, because they support the leaders of al Qaeda and their goal to destroy America.

I'm sorry; I don't see the upside for the Democrat Party to come out in support of al Qaeda and against the idea of killing their leaders.

Here's the report in the Washington Post
Agency Didn't Tell Congress About Bush-Era Plan to Use Assassins

By Joby Warrick and Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The CIA ran a secret program for nearly eight years that aspired to kill top al-Qaeda leaders with specially trained assassins, but the agency declined to tell Congress because the initiative never came close to bringing Osama bin Laden and his deputies into U.S. cross hairs, U.S. intelligence and congressional officials said yesterday.

The plan to deploy teams of assassins to kill senior terrorists was legally authorized by the administration of George W. Bush, but it never became fully operational, according to sources briefed on the matter. The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan -- a bid for secrecy that congressional Democrats now say thwarted proper oversight.

The program, which was terminated last month, touched off a political firestorm last week when several Democrats said the CIA had misled Congress by not disclosing its existence. CIA Director Leon E. Panetta gave lawmakers their first overview on June 24, within hours of learning about it, the officials said.

Some officials familiar with the program said certain elements of it were operational and should have been disclosed because they involved "significant resources and high risk," as one intelligence official described it. But others said the initiative never advanced beyond concepts and feasibility studies.

This purely political gambit by Democrat Party leadership to give cover to Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is simply another in a long line of cynical partisan efforts to distract the American public from the failures, in both domestic and foreign policy, of President (and "Apologizer in Chief") Barack Obama and our Democrat Party controlled Congress.

Rampant unemployment which far exceeds administration predictions and threatens to destroy our nation's economy, a one trillion dollar deficit accrued in the pursuit of a pork-laden "stimulus bill," and ruinous taxes to promote unneeded and destructive legislation are all the legacy of this President and this Congress.
A humiliating performance by the President as he travels around the world deriding his own nation and apologizing for non-existent transgressions in an effort to curry favor with despotic regimes is threatening to derail Democrat Party plans to dominate our government and subjugate the American people, as they are awakening from the hypnotic trance and cult of personality that led them to vote for this least qualified and least competent president in history.
Democrats are once more attempting to "Wag the Dog" as President Clinton did during his impeachment; attempting to distract the American people from their disastrous tenure.

Some few Democrats are intelligent enough to see the down side of such an investigation. Senator Chuck Schumer isn't quite as eager as Senator Durbin to press for an investigation. He sees that Democrats are vulnerable to the accusation of partisanship which will appear to help al Qaeda and damage the Democrat Party...a party that is already vulnerable to accusations of weakness in the face of foreign threats to our nation.

Frankly I support the idea of a full investigation of all of these allegations. Let's see if Democrats have the guts to pursue Madame Pelosi's unfounded allegations against the CIA. Americans need to know if the CIA has been lying to Congress or if the Speaker of the House (and second in line for the Presidency) and Democrats in Congress are lying to them for political gain.

Let's have all of the cards put out on the table. Congress should hold public hearings so that we do not have to depend on "leaks" to the press from gutless "unnamed sources" who have political axes to grind. Let's have a full airing of Pelosi's evidence. Let's find out who is working for our national security and who is, for political gain, working against the CIA and our nation's best interests.

Democrats are fond of telling us the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" so let's shine a little sunlight on these Democrat Party allegations.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, July 13, 2009

Dodging bullets and shrapnel okay but smoking not

Will Malven

More on the Liberal fascist state of Obama and Democrats...I just have to comment on the absurdity of this latest push by "Liberal do-gooders" to take cigarettes away from our troops.

Seems that some Brainiac in the Pentagon's Veterans Department figured out that smoking is bad for you...do tell. I wonder what they think about dodging bullets and defusing IED's.

In the Liberals' world, there is always someone thinking up some means of limiting an individual's freedom..."for their own good." In this case I can guarantee you the individual or individuals involved have never been closer to the battle field than seeing it on the television from their living room...but as usual for Liberals, that doesn't prevent them from being "experts" on a soldier's life (pardon me for using "soldier" as a stand in for all members of the various services, no disrespect intended).

This is from USA Today:

"Ban on tobacco urged in military
By Gregg Zoroya

WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.

Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. "We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith says."

So, here we have a bunch of young men who are in prime condition, trained and battle hardened, capable of fighting in a fluid combat situation and able to make snap life-or-death decisions and improvise tactics when confronted by unpredicted and unpredictable situations, but who cannot be allowed to make their own decisions about whether or not to smoke cigarettes.

Nope, only a Liberal do-gooder in an office back in Washington D.C. is capable of making that decision...go figure.

I looked up this Jack Smith who heads the Pentagon's Department of Clinical and Program Policy, and I'm sure he is a good egg (most do-gooders are "good eggs," well meaning and misguided) it's just that, like most of these good eggs, this one is cracked a bit.

The guy is an M.D. who served for 30 years in the Navy as a surgeon and Commanding Officer of Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, so give him his "props," he's earned them. He also has a degree in Medical Management from Tulane which probably tells you how he began to go wrong-it's like an MBA for doctors.
Here's his bio at the DOD.
Doctor Smith (does that name give anyone else the "willies," as in the evil "Doctor Smith" of the old "Lost in Space" series?) anyway, Doctor Smith has done a lot of good for a lot of people throughout his career, so I'm not going to trash him too severely, just his "do-gooder" attitude.

Being a doctor, especially a military doctor who has seen a lot of casualties and probably saved a lot of sailors' lives, is a career which lends itself naturally to engendering the individual with a God complex. It must be hard to prevent it when one is faced with life or death decisions, but it doesn't excuse his "do-gooder" actions.

This is the essence of being a Liberal, the overwhelming desire to control the thoughts and actions of other people "for their own good." They can't help it. It comes from the natural arrogance, usually born of ignorance, that being a good Liberal requires. After all, they know better than you what is in your best interest.

It's kind of like the derisive laugh a Liberal emits when confronted by a well reasoned argument with which he cannot deal...he laughs as though to imply that the argument is absurd, when in reality he has just been slapped down by a conservative during a political discussion. Logic is the one facet of thinking which escapes Liberals completely.

It is a truism that anytime a "do-gooder" (Liberal or otherwise) says he wants to do something "for your own good," look to your freedom and liberty because some part of it is about to be taken from you..."for your own good."

Liberals hate freedom. Liberals hate individual liberty. Liberals love to control other people and their behavior (and thoughts-as in "hate crimes" legislation). Who knew God made Liberals all-knowing and all-wise?

Somehow I doubt he did, since they tend to be on the forefront of those who deny His existence.

There is one aspect of life with which everyone...including doctors must come to terms...everyone dies and there is nothing that any human can do to prevent it.

No one, not even the best intentioned "do-gooder" can eliminate all risks in life so why don't you "do-gooders" just
back off and allow individuals to make their own decisions. Yes many of them will make bad decisions, but that is their God given right. It is up to them to deal with the consequences (and us sometimes) as we provide their care if they are in the military, but after their sacrifices don't you think maybe they have earned that right?

Even if it costs the American tax-payer a little more money, these people have chosen to risk their lives in service to us. To me that's a pretty good bargain for the ability to sleep peacefully at night in our own beds.

Hey Defense Secretary Gates, LEAVE THE TROOPS' CIGARETTES ALONE!!! You and they have far more important things to occupy your time...like surviving on a battlefield and achieving victory.

God save us from the do-gooders.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Global Governance: The real Left-wing agenda

Will Malven

When President Obama, Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and most Leftwing politicians speak of the "global economic crisis," or of "global climate change" they actually are interested in exercising control over your life.

It also happens that they are pursuing some sort of socialist world government.

No, I am not one of those kooks who sees "black helicopters" outside every window. Nor am I one who perceives the hidden hand of "Bilderbergers," "the Rothschilds," "the Trilaterals," "the Illuminati," "the Council on Foreign Relations," "Skull and Bones" or even the Masons behind every assassination, crisis, or change in the geopolitical landscape. I find these conspiracy theory aficionados to be as dangerous and destructive to the political discourse and the sanity or our nation...

...But I am one who begins to worry when I hear Left-wing politicians reciting the mantra of "Global Governance" on a regular basis; especially when I see the magnitude and rapidity with which this Democrat President and his Democrat Congress are now moving our nation towards socialism and dependence on government.

This "Global Governance" theme is one which has appeared periodically throughout history. Particularly, under different names, it has been the goal of every despot in every dictatorship or kingdom that has sought to dominate other nations.

In recent history, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have all had their moment in the spotlight trying to dominate the lives of those in other nations either overtly through war, or covertly through propaganda and subversion.

Today we face a new threat from those on the Left, who have traditionally been the enemies of freedom. These people use a different lexicon. They use words like "Global Warming," "Climate Change," and "Global Economic Crisis" to engender fear among the populace and enable them to pass sweeping legislation.

They use words like "crisis" and "emergency" to press for the passing of (often very ill-advised and poorly written) legislation without giving those voting or even the people for whom they are supposed to be working and "protecting" the time or opportunity to review said legislation, insisting that "time is short" or "lives will be placed at risk" should anyone demand the time to examine that which is being promoted and passed.

In recent weeks we have seen this technique being used to pass irresponsible, massive spending bills, both to "stimulate the economy" and to "reduce greenhouse gasses." The air of "emergency" permeates the discourse in Congress, egged on by a national press corps which has long since left impartiality behind and has become an active participant in promoting this agenda.

We are constantly being bombarded with this Leftist propaganda and told that we are "uncaring," "unfeeling," and "selfish" should we oppose their agenda or even demand an explanation of what impact these new laws will actually have both on the lives of the American people and on the problem at which they are nominally directed.

Once and a while, one of these leaders of the new agenda let slip their true intentions. This week was a great week for these revelations as Climate Change Alarmist and Profiteer Al Gore, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Pope Benedict XVI all referred to the need for "global governance.

These revelations don't happen by mistake, these Leftists (and yes I include the Pope in that description...the Vatican has long been a bastion of socialist thought and the concept of the redistribution of wealth-both very un-Christian ideas) all understand that concepts which are initially so alien to the human psyche that they are rejected out of hand, if repeatedly promoted, gradually evolve from being abhorrent to being ignored to being accepted and eventually embraced. The pattern has been repeated often over the years.

Global Warming pimp Albert Gore Jr. let slip the true intent behind his long campaign to "fight manmade global warming" in a speech he gave on July 8th of this year before an Oxford (England) crowd at the Smith
School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment when he stated:

...it is the awareness itself (of global climate change)that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements." [Emphasis added]

The Times Online has the six minute clip of what I'm sure was an interminably long speech from the lugubrious doomsayer in its article (which interestingly fails to mention the above reference) Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change
Interestingly, two days later Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a similar comment in reference to the "global economic crisis," telling his audience at the G8 Summit in Italy:

"Our view is that all of these systems of national regulations have to be fixed, but there also has to be international coordination. There has to be an international peer review for national regulations. So there is transparency. There is peer review and peer assessment.

We undergo that in Canada. It is very useful when we have undergone it and we think all countries need to be part of that.
It does not...it does not detract...it does not detract from national sovereignty." [Riiigghht! That's why you stuttered when you said it.]

"Nation states are clearly going to exercise their rights to regulate their financial system, but in a globalized economy we are going to have to take global responsibilities.
And there is going to have to be some semblance of global governance on these questions. [Emphasis added]

Well, Harper is a Conservative in the George W. Bush mold...meaning he's moderately to the Left of Center with some few "right-wing" views (like not recognizing "gay marriage"). He's no Ronald Reagan of the North or anything like that.

On almost the same day, the Pope, Benedict XVI also chimed in on the need for some form of a "true world political authority" to work for "the common good." The New York Times reports:

Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good’
Published: July 7, 2009

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “true world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.”

He criticized the current economic system, “where the pernicious effects of sin are evident,” and urged financiers in particular to “rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity.”

He also called for “greater social responsibility” on the part of business. “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty,” Benedict wrote in his new encyclical, which the Vatican released on Tuesday.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Now I know that some of you Liberals and some of you Libertarians and Paulites out there are screaming..."But, but, but President George H. W. Bush repeatedly used the term "New World Order" when he spoke of the global geopolitical situation!"

Well keep your knickers on folks, yes he did do so and quite often during the first gulf war, but to anyone who reads those invocations in context, the inescapable conclusion was that he was referring to the geopolitical situation in the post Soviet Union world. HIs frame of reference was specifically that of the military balance of power and the fact that the fall of the Soviet Union left America in a singular situation, that as the sole major global military power with all of the responsibilities that status entailed.

What clearly was not being referenced, in contrast to that which is now being proposed was some sort of one world government. What clearly was not being discussed was the end national sovereignty. That particular fascination rests pretty much with those on the Left side of the political spectrum...those who still believe that the United Nations exists as something other than a convenient venue for America bashing...in other words those who still reside in a Leftist fantasy world.

When Liberals...as most Democrats appear to be these days...begin talking of "global governance" and members of our Supreme Court openly admit that they believe foreign law should advise how our own Constitution should be interpreted, folks you better look to your nation.

If you believe in America as the single greatest force for good in the world over the past century, if you understand that America has never fought for territorial gain, has never occupied a foreign nation and retained control of it. If you look at America's sacrifices in blood and treasure in the defense of freedom of other nations with a sense of pride and if you are one of those who believes patriotism to be a virtue rather than a character flaw, then you had best look to your country and your congress.

YOur nation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama Administration and its supporters and being replaced with a sort of European/African socialist state in which individual liberty and freedom are sacrificed "for the good of the people."

It is the antithesis of everything in which our Founding Fathers believed and it will turn this nation from the greatest economic, military and moral power on the planet into a third-rate nation with a third rate economy filled with a subjugated population who share lives of quiet desperation while the elite of our society...meaning the ruling class...meaning Democrats...live lives of luxury.

If you don't believe me just look at the former Soviet Union. They too sacrificed their liberty and freedom "for the good of the people."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!