Is Violence on the Rise?

In the 1960's and early 1970's, America erupted in violence over the Vietnam war. Civil and political unrest led to riots in the streets and on campuses all across America.

Images of the '60's and '70's come to mind when I see the political polarization in America today. At a book signing yesterday, Karl Rove was personally attacked by someone shouting that he "ruined America." Ann Coulter was unable to speak on a college campus in Ottawa, Canada because of students protesting and shouting. In California, students at a number of college campuses are rioting and are in an uproar over cuts to student aid programs. TEA party protesters have clashed (although, generally in a more civil manner) with members of Congress as well as others on the left over massive increases in the size and scope of the federal government.

There is no question that America is becoming increasingly polarized, politically. It also appears that the increased polarization is causing people to become increasingly frustrated, angry and that anger and frustration is, at times, coming out in the form of physical actions.

Is this getting worse? Is it getting out of hand?

I think that the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes." Is it getting out of hand? I guess that depends on your perspective.

Many Americans, and especially Americans on the right, feel that their government no longer represents the American people. And rightly so. Congress and obama have passed and signed into law a bill that is, by many accounts, unconstitutional, contrary to the will of the American people, and will destroy America, economically.

In all fairness, however, while the TEA party and others on the right are becoming increasingly vocal, for the most part (and there are a few exceptions), they have remained mostly civil. In spite of accusations of racism and (apparently false) accusations of name calling, TEA Party members and others on the right pretty much stick to arguing their point in logical, though sometimes loud, and civil manner.

Interestingly, some on the left are becoming increasingly vocal and increasingly violent, in spite of the fact that their party is in complete control at the moment. While some Democrats have complained about threats, a Republican party headquarters office in Michigan had a brick go through its window yesterday and Republican Senator Cantor had a bullet go through a window of his office.

I'm not going to condone or condemn the violence, itself. I'm not a violent person, but I can understand the anger and frustration behind some of this violence. I have expressed over the past week my own anger and frustration and said things that some would consider pretty extreme.

Furthermore, the founding fathers, themselves, advocated a violent overthrow of government if and when government abandoned the constitution and got out of control. (Are we there, yet?)

What I will say, however, is that I think this is going to get worse. obama is the most polarizing, controversial President ever elected into office. And this Congress has made it clear that it is going to push an agenda that it thinks is good for America in spite of the fact that the American people disagree. The American people DO NOT like what is going on. They believe that Washington is not listening to them, and furthermore, they believe that ObamaKare, The Stimulus Act and some of the proposed policies that have yet to become reality will lead America down a road to destruction from which we may never recover. (By the way, I happen to agree with that assessment).

Here is my question: If you believe that this government is out of control; if you believe that legislation being passed under this administration will permanently destroy America's economy; and if you believe that many of these laws and policies will be irreversible, what should your response be? Should you simply sit aside and watch this happen? Should you speak out, even if speaking out gets you labelled a racist and is ignored by the politicians in Washington? Should you work toward changing the government, even if that means a violent change may be the only way to fix things?

Whatever the answer, I believe that obama, Pelosi and Reid (who are blaming Fox News and Conservative Radio) are to blame for some of the violence and anger in our country. By ignoring the American People, by using illegal tactics to pass Obamakare, by creating underhanded deals and selling votes in Congress, by taking away our rights and freedoms, they have created an environment where more and more Americans are feeling that government is out of control and unresponsive.

And in spite of what I think and what you think, the American People are beginning to come to the conclusion that enough is enough.

Read more...

Stupidak's Vote Paid For With Earmarks

A government watchdog group called the Sunlight Foundation, has uncovered the "payoff" for Bart Stupidak and ten other House members who exchanged their vote on health care for earmarks. I looked all over the news for this and found nothing. A google search (using logical words from this story) also uncovered NO RESULTS in the "news" section. (This article was found under a blog search). If you wonder how they were able to get the needed votes to pass the "Health Care Theft of Freedom Act", now you know...

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, whichpassed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak’s funded earmarks–including those he requested jointly with other members–totaled $28.6 million.

Despite a newly enacted ban on earmarks to for-profit firms, Stupak requested a total of $52 million for companies in his district out of the $65.9 million he requested from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Read more...

Troop Deaths Double In Afghanistan

Here's something you won't see in the mainstream media ... unless you see it associated with George W. Bush "starting it."

The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban's momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base ofKandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

"We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March, an average of about 0.8 per day, compared to 13, or 0.4 per day, a year ago.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties last summer and fall, which undermined public support in the U.S. for the 8-year-old American-led mission here. Fighting traditionally tapers off in Afghanistan during winter months, only to peak in the summer.

Read more...

Premiums to Rise under ObamaCare

(Source: Newsbusters)

It's no shock to rational, thinking people that healthcare legislation currently before Congress will do nothing to halt rising insurance premiums, but that the folks at the Associated Press would come to such a conclusion AND write about it is quite surprising.

There it was in a piece published Wednesday called, "FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan."

Readers are strongly encouraged to fasten seatbelts tightly, for they're about to enter what has to be an alternate universe (h/t Ed Morrissey):

Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.

Shhh. Wait. It got better:

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works. [...]

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation.

Imagine that. Real facts about ObamaCare from the AP as the Democrats try to garner enough votes to get it passed.

Who'd have thunk it?

Unfortunately, this piece still didn't accurately reflect the entire truth as Ed Morrissey noted Wednesday:

The insurance policies of the future under ObamaCare would provide more comprehensive benefits, but that’s because ObamaCare would outlaw more modest plans. The federal mandates of ObamaCare would mean that healthy people would no longer have the choice of low-cost, high-deductible plans that encourage direct spending on routine medical issues, the exact kind of policies that realreform would emphasize. Obama and the Democrats want to force young, healthy people into committing more money into risk pools in order to keep premium increases down for others — in essence, subsidizing medical care for older, higher-risk pool members.

Despite this oversight, the AP did a pretty good job, especially as it referred to a speech Obama just made this week in a Cleveland suburb:

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket." [...]

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

Makes you wonder what might have happened during the presidential campaign in 2008 if the AP had spent its time fact-checking Obama's stump speeches rather than gushing and fawning over them.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/17/shocking-ap-fact-check-premiums-will-rise-under-obamacare#ixzz0jPp1zDv0

Read more...

Quote of the Week

"This is a big fucking deal."

-- Vice President Joe Biden, referring to Michelle Obama's butt.

Read more...

Calls For Special Prosecuter To Investigate Bribery

Representative Darrell Issa (R)-CA, has called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Representative Sestak’s (D)-PA claim of an Obama White House bribery attempt. Sestak alleges that the White House offered him a top federal spot to drop out of a Primary race with sometime Democrat, sometime Republican and full time Harpy, Arlen Specter.

The call for independent review should be welcomed by those who are disgusted by the back alley deals, tax cheating cabinet members, and a whole host of ethical issues that plague the Democrat Party and the Obama White House in particular. From payoffs to Senators to Viagra maintenance for Sex Offenders, The Left and Obama have forced America to accept and in the future even pay for things that are not only against the mainstream, but also unconstitutional. Given the way the Democrats ran roughshod over their own Party to force reluctant members to ignore their constituents, it makes sense to have someone outside of the Obama-Pelosi-Soros cabal ascertain just how much credence to place in Sestak’s claims.

Credibility is the real problem here. On the one hand, Obama denies any deal was offered, while Sestak insists it did. On the other hand both folks have shown a willingness to bold face lie to the American people and their constituents in passing a very controversial bill which violates the Constitution. The lies and deception surrounding the Democrats handling of this Bill demands an honest review. But who to do it?

Patrick Fitzgerald, when it was fashionable to be in the Special Prosecuting business, made a dog’s breakfast of the “Libbygate” investigation. Guided by partisanship and ambition (while never proven, it was rumored he was angling for an AG spot in a Kerry Administration), he was a lousy choice to investigate fairly. In the end nothing was ever proven about the initial allegations, and after Kerry’s defeat in 2004, interest dropped in the case. Libby was sideshow and once the big show ended, Election 2004, Fitzgerald went back to Chicago. Chicago? Imagine that.

Read more...

First Whore to Be Honored By Nickelodeon

The nappy-haired whore in the White House, Michelle Obama, will be "honored" at Nickelodeon’s 23rd Annual Kids’ Choice Awards Saturday for her “Let’s Move” campaign, designed to force people to eat and drink government-approved food and beverages.

The announcement was made by Nickelodeon Thursday. Reports are that Michelle Obama, with whom Nick has been working to advance government controlled dieting campaign (the network has donated $3 million for school programs related to it), has taped a message for the show. She will be too busy helping her husband turn America into a socialist state to appear in person.

No word on whether she'll ever take a stand against smoking and insist that the Muslim-in-Chief give up his habit of smoking cigarettes, joints and who knows what else in the White House.

Read more...

Stupak thinks opponents are being uncivil

Stupid Stupak thinks that something is wrong when people call him to complain about his hypocritical, lying behavior in Congress when he voted for an illegal, unconstitutional health care bill.

Stupid Stupak thinks that people calling to complain are uncivil when they call his office to register their disappointment with his disgusting vote.

Well, guess what, Stupak, you *(bleep)*ing moron. When you screw the American people, when you take away our freedoms, when you usurp the Constitution of the United States of America and turn us into the People's Socialist Republic of Amerika, some people might take offense.

After spending MONTHS ignoring Republicans and the American people, after thumbing their noses as the TEA party, after calling Sarah Palin all sorts of nasty names, the democRATS are now complaining about the American people being uncivil in their response to the illegal health care vote.

Really?

Just wait until the elections. You haven't even BEGUN to see uncivil yet, you bastards.

Read more...

An Incoherent Rant

This is not a post. This is not a logical argument. This is not a "political statement."

This is an incoherent rant.

I'm angry. Angry and frustrated.

People, we don't live in the United States of America, anymore. We live in the People's Socialist Republic of Amerika.

Earlier this week, our civil rights were violated by our leaders. The Dems and Muslim In Chief have decided that a socialist utopian society trumps the constitution.

The Dems in congress decided that the will of the people is insignificant to the advancement of a communist agenda.

The Dems in congress decided that the policies and procedures that have been in place in congress for over 200 years are no longer good enough, if they block the way of the communist manifesto.

And, consequently, we are no longer a free people.

If congress can do this, they can do anything. Congress now has unlimited power to do whatever the hell it wants to the people of the .... People's Socialist Republic of Amerika.

It's time for a revolution. I never thought I'd be saying this. It's time to take down the government and replace it. It's time to line up all the politicians, try them for treason, then line them up and shoot them all. Congress.... the Administration ... and the Supreme Court.

Every one of them.

Perhaps I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if there were someplace else I could go.

Until now, we've lived in the most free nation in the world. Europe has gone socialist. China is communist. The middle east is totalitarian. Much of the rest of the world is either socialist, communist or has some form of totalitarian government. The US was a safe haven for people who loved freedom.

That's gone.

Why didn't Pelosi and Reid and Obama and all the other *bleep*ing socialist America haters move to Europe. That's the model they love, anyway. Or China. Many of them would be more comfortable there than here.

If find it odd that Dems in Washington are surprised, shocked at the threats against them after the health care vote.

Well, what the *(bleep)* did you THINK would happen, you *(bleep)*ing MORONS? You violate our rights. You take away our freedoms. You yank our constitution out from under us.

You think we're just going to sit back and let you shove it hard and deep without us saying anything?

Well, FU, you bastards.

*Note: This post is an expression of anger and frustration and should in no way be construed as a threat toward any person or institution. I know you are monitoring this blog, because we no longer have freedom of speech. So, if you want me, come and get me.

Read more...

Unconstitutional Procedure Will Be Used to Pass Unconstitutional Bill

House leaders are preparing to ram through ObamaCare this week without a vote. Not only is the legislation unconstitutional, but the process being used to pass it is unconstitutional. The House is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate-passed version of ObamaCare passed in the House even though members would never directly vote on it. That would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how the trick would work: In the House, the Rules Committee sets up the parameters for debate on legislation. House leaders are considering a complicated rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule setting down the structure for the ObamaCare debate would allow the Senate’s version of health care reform to pass without a vote. First, there would be a vote on a rule. If the rule is passed by the House, then the House would vote on a health care budget reconciliation measure that is an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill. If that reconciliation measure passes, then reconciliation goes to the Senate and the ObamaCare legislation is deemed passed without a direct vote. The plan for the legislation is unclear. House leadership will either structure the rule to either immediately present ObamaCare to the President for his signature or they will hold the bill and deliver it only if the Senate passes a health care reconciliation measure. Either way, the Constitution and the American people are the losers.

Understand that this procedure is drafted in a way so your average American can’t understand it. The simple way to understand the situation is that the House is trying to pass a bill without a vote.

The Constitution states that the House and Senate are supposed to pass identical versions of a bill before the President can sign it into law. One of the reasons for this tricky procedure is to provide cover for moderate Democrats who don’t want to vote for the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill because it includes the federal funding of abortion.

Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, explains it this way at the Wall Street Journal today:

Democratic congressional leaders have floated a plan to enact health-care reform by a procedure dubbed “the Slaughter solution.” It is named not for the political carnage that it might inflict on their members, but for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, who proposed it. Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate’s health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

McConnell is right. The Constitution says that:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

If a branch does not vote on a bill, then that bill did not pass. This proposed procedure seems to be a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. There will be debate on the proper remedy for this constitutional affront, but all can agree that, at a minimum, House members can raise a constitutional point of order against the rule.

Liberals in the House understand that this process is hard to defend. Chris Frates at Politico writes about a leaked memo drafted by Assistant to the Speaker Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) intended to provide talking points to Democrat members when challenged on the unconstitutional process.

The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process. “At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote — up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL,” the memo says. “People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the House Rules Committee have come up with a very complicated procedure to get ObamaCare to the President’s desk without House members having to vote directly on the bill. This procedure is going to be debated extensively this week and may be the key issue as to whether President Obama signs legislation to provide a de facto government-run health care system.

Read more...

Where Does the Tea Party go from Here?

Earlier, I posted an entry regarding the Tea Party and the Constitution. I noticed when I entered my Key Words that I had never used "Tea Party" as a key word before. I made a mental note that the Tea Party will probably be with us for some time, now. I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon.

My question is this: Should the Tea Party become its own separate political party, or remain a loose, grassroots movement?

Pros: Clearly neither party is listening to the smaller government message, although the Republican Party is giving lip service to listening. It would give those with a genuine smaller-government message a voice in the political process and establish the movement more permanently.

Cons: Since most of the "smaller government" crowd tends to vote Republican, this would represent a genuine split of the Republican Party and could end up keeping Dems in power for decades to come. Furthermore, the same kind of corruption and dilution of message that is taking place in the other parties would likely take place in the New Tea Party as well.

My feeling at this point is that the Tea Party better serves America by being a voice on the outside looking in. We are more likely to affect change by saying "We'll vote for you if you tow the line. Otherwise, we'll vote you out."

What do you think?

Read more...

Rendering the Constitution Irrelevant

Throughout most of 2009, the liberal wing of the Democrat Party, the inhabitants of the White House, and the slavishly progressive mainstream media dismissed the Tea Party movement. They apparently assumed that the Tea Party was populated by the “fringe conservative” element of the Republican Party, which meant that their base was still solidly affixed. They apparently assumed that the Tea Party would not organize, which Tea Partiers have done – quite effectively. They apparently assumed that if they could force enough laws through by political will and curious expediency, the Tea Party would dissolve under the weight of new bureaucracies.

Moreover, leaders in the Republican Party foolishly believed that Tea Partiers would “return” to the fold after their period of wandering.

All of them were wrong.

Long before the Tea Party movement came into being, a quiet war was taking place in America. Popular talk-show host Glenn Beck has gained a huge following by connecting the dots between Cloward, Piven, Progressives, and the White House, which is symptomatic of the war. He has put together many pieces of the puzzle, and new pieces are fitting everyday. It’s no surprise he’s the darling of and inspiration for the Tea Party movement. He sees, and more Americans are beginning to recognize, that the goal of fanatical Progressives is not progress; their goal is rendering the Constitution irrelevant.

Progressives have long used the law, whether through the courts or the legislature, to force radical change. When propositions are repeatedly defeated in the public forum, progressives seek any and all alternative routes to push their agenda. They believe that they can effectively intimidate the American people, and strip them of their identity, through the weight of the law, regardless of Constitutional limits or safeguards.

Is it any wonder that they actively promote the flawed notion of a “living” Constitution? If the limits within the Constitution are malleable, they can be altered to expand the role of government on a whim. Is it any wonder that they slap the term “rights” onto initiatives or programs that are, in fact, privileges, thereby blurring the line between the two? They do not see rights as an inalienable, integral and inherent component of our humanity; rights, like “privileges,” are viewed as gifts of the State.

The more Americans they can convince of this twisted logic, the easier it will be to affect the kind of change informed Americans would otherwise reject.

Read more...