A Blog Dedicated to Freedom, Liberty and the Rights of Man

SILENCE, TEBOW!

A typical leftist maneuver - rather than counter someone's rational belief with an argument based on facts and reason, they move to silence speech.  It's a good thing that CBS (shockingly) had the good sense to run the Tim and Pam Tebow ad for Focusonthefamily.com. 

If the far left is so opposed to the Tebows' beliefs, they should articulate why their position is superior, or more morally sound...unless that's not possible...

As radio host Michael Savage has so eloquently put it in the past, what happened to the true, classical liberal who would say "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death"?

Now, the mantra of the neo-liberal is "shut up and do as we say."

In truth, the Libertarian is the classical liberal and today's neo-liberal is some derivative of a Marxist/Trotskyite/Statist.

The State of The Union

I'll save everyone some time - here's the State of The Union:

1. The majority of Americans doesn't want gov't takeover of health care (too bad - it's still being forced upon us).

2. We have a thief running the Treasury (Geithner), but so was his predecessor (Paulson). AIG was bailed out in order to turn over taxpayer money to Goldman Sachs.

3. Unemployment is double-digit. Any statistic that says the government "saved or created" X jobs uses accounting that would make Ken Lay of Enron blush.

4. Independents will control the direction of the politics for the foreseeable future. They were suckered into voting for President OBAMA! in 2008 and responded by voting for Republicans in VA, NJ and, most importantly, MA (hello Scott Brown, don't let us down).

5. The majority want tax cuts. Taxes and real prices have gone up since 2008.



I'll throw a plan out there; I can't take full credit for it, because I remember Michael Savage articulating a similar plan some time ago. If you want real economic growth, reduce tax rates across the board by 5%, reduce government spending by 10% (2% per year over 5 years) and eliminate the capital gains and dividend taxes. I'd say allow for the privatization of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, but I know that will never happen.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Theft, Plain and Simple

Our friend Hugo Chavez announced that he was making his countries currency (ironically called the "Strong Bolivar" worth half of what it was worth a few days ago compared to the dollar, in a late-Friday night devaluation.  Of course, as a good dictator, he made the announcement by fiat, late on Friday and during  baseball game so that people weren't paying much attention.

Now, Comrade Chavez says that this is to help the poor.  How is this possible?  If someone had $1000 worth of Bolivars to his or her name and now they're worth $500, do you think that helps a poor person??

And of course, in order to tighten his vice-grip on the next of his subjects, Tzar Chavez said he would dispatch the army to ensure that business don't raise prices, threatening to seize businesses who raised their prices in response to Chavez stealing half of their currency's value.Let me understand this - if I owned a store, and bought a bag of rice for $20 worth of Bolivars and was selling it for $40 worth of Bolivars on Thursday, and the Bolivars were cut in half in value, that destroys my entire profit margin.  The socialist planned market is such a lovely thing, isn't it?

The worst part is that this thug was making nice with President OBAMA! a few months back; a sign of things to come, perhaps?

Barney Frank is a Far-Leftist Cocksucker

Shocking? Senator Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing about Massachusetts Senate Hopeful Scott Brown, calling him a "far-right tea bagger." So I'm resorting to the same tactics: Barney Frank is a Far-Leftist Cocksucker.

There's some question regarding if good ol'Chaz (or "Putz Head," as d'Amato said) knows what the heck "tea bagging" is. Go to urban dictionary if you're an AARP Member (or have just been sheltered).

Regardless, it's a typical leftist maneuver to resort to ad hominem insults when you can't win the argument otherwise. Pretty classless for Chuck to call someone a tea bagger, less than a month after calling a stewardess a "bitch."

I wonder what lib would have the nuts to call a real circa 1775 patriot a "tea bagger"? I have a feeling they'd be staring down the barrel of a musket in short order.

Marxism Trumps Racism

It's amazing that the Marxists in Washington, DC are supporting Harry Reid, in light of the report that Reid described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

This tells me one thing: the Marxist goal of socializing the health care system is more important than Reid's racist remark. It's clear that President OBAMA! and his allies need Reid as the crucial 60th vote.

Prediction: if the Republicans take Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts' special election, Reid is done and will be forced out, because the Marxists won't have 60 votes. If the Republicans lose, Reid steps down after the health care vote, or bows out of re-election this fall.

Or, he'll just lose at the polls. Done deal - he's politically dead.

Theft, Plain and Simple

Our friend Hugo Chavez announced that he was making his countries currency (ironically called the "Strong Bolivar" worth half of what it was worth a few days ago compared to the dollar, in a late-Friday night devaluation.  Of course, as a good dictator, he made the announcement by fiat, late on Friday and during  baseball game so that people weren't paying much attention.

Now, Comrade Chavez says that this is to help the poor.  How is this possible?  If someone had $1000 worth of Bolivars to his or her name and now they're worth $500, do you think that helps a poor person??

And of course, in order to tighten his vice-grip on the next of his subjects, Tzar Chavez said he would dispatch the army to ensure that business don't raise prices, threatening to seize businesses who raised their prices in response to Chavez stealing half of their currency's value.Let me understand this - if I owned a store, and bought a bag of rice for $20 worth of Bolivars and was selling it for $40 worth of Bolivars on Thursday, and the Bolivars were cut in half in value, that destroys my entire profit margin.  The socialist planned market is such a lovely thing, isn't it?

The worst part is that this thug was making nice with President OBAMA! a few months back; a sign of things to come, perhaps?

Are Newspapers Like Buses?

"A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations."

"Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues," Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

Excuse me?  Do these people think before they speak?  Waxman (who incidentally looks overcome by swine flu) almost sounds like he's talking about providing public services, like buses and trains, or garbage collection, in large cities.

The article references this group, named Free Press, which also advocates "net neutrality", or more specifically government-control of the internet.  "Free Press, a public interest group, said the search for solutions to the crisis in journalism should be premised on the idea that news-gathering is a public service, not a commodity."

The First Amendment was written to protect news organizations that were critical of the government from prosecution for their ideas.  To permit the government to "bail" these conglomerates out, in exchange for their independence (which is dubious at best even now) is absolute insanity. 

Imagine this conversation:  "Here, we'll take care of your debt, Mr. Newspaper - but you can't endorse any candidates, or criticize any of us."  What public service would the media provide the public, while censored and under the government's thumb?

Waxman, and any lawmaker who pushes forward with any sort of act that skirts the First Amendment in this respect should be impeached.

 

Health Care Nightmare

I love how the government is already pushing "new recommendations," saying that women can push back mamograms and pap smears a few years.

For years, the mantra was "early detection."  Now, as OBAMAcare is almost upon us, suddenly the mantra is "early detection, but wait a few more years, because the government is paying for it."

Also, my understanding is that the FDA is going to step up its use of "patent exclusivity" for a term of 12 years. Now, mind you - this isn't patent protection, which prohibits someone from copying your product for a period of time. This patent exclusivity would prohibit SIMILAR drugs from entering the market.

Think about it - Company A produces a certain type of drug that helps treat cancer, for example. Company B, for 12 years, can't develop a drug that similarly treats the cancer, but perhaps with less side effects.

This is the antithesis of the free market and exactly what opponents of government-run health care have been worried about: the rationing of care and lack of choices.

Defeat this legislation.

These Folks

Quote from today's New York Post: "White House senior adviser David Axelrod shot back, 'We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City...'".

"Folks" (from thefreedictionary.com):

1. a. The common people of a society or region considered as the representatives of a traditional way of life and especially as the originators or carriers of the customs, beliefs, and arts that make up a distinctive culture.

b. (Archaic) A nation; a people.

2. (Informal) People in general. Often used in the plural: Folks around here are very friendly.

3. People of a specified group or kind. Often used in the plural: city folks; rich folk.

4. folks (Informal)

a. The members of one's family or childhood household; one's relatives.

b. One's parents: My folks are coming for a visit.

***

What did Axelrod mean when he was refering to the Islamofacists (full credit to Michael Savage for that brilliant term) as "folks?"

Under 1a, 1b and 3, he would be implying that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his homicidal, jihadist approach to the Western World was typical for a representative of the Arab community. While this is probably not far from the truth, I'm sure an OBAMA! administration member would never believe that, much less say it.

Under 2, he would just simply be refering to these homicidal Ishmaelite maniacs as "guys" or "people." Much more likely for a liberal to try to scrub their heinous crimes by humanizing these inhuman monsters.

Under 4, Axelrod would be implying that KSM et al. were his family, or his parents. I'm sure that they do not share common lineage (though they might share a desire to destroy America as we know it).

Bottom line, the Administration loses all credibility when it attempts to play "referee" and try to refer to these scumbags in sanitiized terms, almost as if their crime was shoplifting.

These douchebags should not be tried as civilians, since they were captured on foreign soil fighting US troops. Remember what a show the Zacharias Moussoui trial was? These will be more of a mockery.

I ask again, whose side are you on, Barack Hussein OBAMA!?

Why Does Our President Bow to Foreign Authority Figures?

Is this a subconscious gesture, since the US has been made into a "slave" of the Saudis (oil) and Asian Creditors (buyers of Treasury Notes, Bonds, etc.)?