All we've got left

If the mother fuckers in Washington refuse to listen, this is all we've got left:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they have become accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, persuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to render them under absolute depotism, it is their right it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
government. . . .

You know, the goal of terrorism isn't a coup -- that is, a strike at a government to topple it. The goal of terrorism is to destabilize a government, destroy its legitimacy and support of the public.

That's what this fucking marxist in the White House is trying to do.

So as happy as I would be to grab a gun and head out for the Potomac, I wouldn't give him the satisfaction. Why make him a martyr?

Cling to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence. Even though they are being snuffed out as we all sit and watch, cling to the ideals. Teach your children so they can teach their children. The human race will rise again.

May you rot in hell, Ben Nelson

'Nuff said.

The stupid son of a bitch will be remembered forever for his help in wrecking the nation.

There's always Honduras.

Storm over Copenhagen

Wonder when they did the planning for the socialist-confab-disguised-as-a-climate-conference in Copenhagen. Usually these things are scheduled a couple years in advance. Perhaps employing the UN and IPCC climate models, conference planners expected tropical weather in Copenhagen at this time of year. But apparently the city is under blizzard conditions just now. A big Oops! on that one, huh?

Read in the Wall Street Journal that Hillary Clinton has committed the USA to "assisting to raise" $100 billion per year for poor countries to help them green up. Only, Clinton made the commitment dependent upon getting China to agree to the same. Very clever. China must know that any $100 billion that comes from the USA will have to be borrowed from China first. Think they'll agree to that?

Clinton's position is all a diplomatic smokescreen to make the US look compliant to these stupid, global-socialism policies. Better just to admit that they're stupid policies and get it over with. I mean, really, who needs this crap? Why enable it?

I, for one, will never work my butt off to build windmills in Angola. Sorry about that. The USA was a wilderness at one time, too -- and not so very long ago -- and somehow this nation developed without the aid of global meddling and hand-outs. We did, however, have the advantage of foreign investment in many cases -- something that's still available to developing nations.

But you do know which ingredient is missing in the underdeveloped states, don't you? That is, you know what they need to make them attractive investments: POLTICAL LIBERTY AND FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. Who wants to invest in a country if the investment is going to be nationalized or burned to the ground by a bunch of machete-toting barbarians? Or islamic terrorists. Take your pick -- same basic lack of respect for human life and individual rights.

The best thing the developed nations can do for the 3rd world is to leave them alone, except as trade partners. They are capable of finding their own way and developing their own economies. For a while, they begged for independence. Isn't that what they all claimed to want as imperialist European colonialism was breathing its last gasps following WWII? They even have the benefit now of being able to get educations here and in Europe to take advantage of all the knowledge the human race has accumulated. So what's holding them back, except sorry-ass domestic leadership and misguidance from globalist do-gooders?

At any rate, 3rd world nations must begin by providing themselves with some kind of a politically stable environment and the establishment and enforcement of private property rights. The UN can't give them that, except under force of arms. They just have to grow up and take another approach. Instead of whining to the UN with hat in hand, begging for aid and spinning tales of civil war and poltical cannibalism, they must embrace the concept of equal individual rights and build on that. And stop eating each other's children, figurately speaking.

'Course that's not what the marxist-socialist one-worlders want, or even these nations' own home-grown totalitarian leadership. The one-worlders would prefer to keep them as dependent colonies at the beck and call of heaven-only-knows-who -- some supreme global conference of the divinely enlightened. Some Super Comrade. An Ubermensch. So as they develop, the Ubermensch can pillage and redistribute their wealth.

That's exactly what will happen unless the people themselves of those nations rise up to stand against it. Like Honduras.

Anyway, personally, I refuse to fund anything less that kind of freedom. It's just pouring my labor and my ideas and my money down a rat-hole. Ain't gonna happen, I guarantee. They'd have to pry those dollars out of my cold, dead hands. And they'd have to get to me before the IRS does.

The party of "know"

Been very busy lately with work and all, but I listen to the radio while I work and heard Sean Hannity with senators Tim DeMint (R-SC) and Coburn (R-OK), about insisting that a 767-page amendment to the socialized medicine bill proposed by Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) be read aloud on the floor of the Senate. Sanders' amendment proposed an entirely socialized single-payer health care system. After about three hours of droning on and on, Sanders withdrew the proposal. Embarrassed at having it exposed to the public or what?

The Republicans are finally taking the gloves off, apparently. About all they can do is delay the bill so long that any kind of vote on it will slop over into the 112th Congressional Session, beginning in January. By then, the socialized medicine bill will be "old business." It will also come up after the senators have had the opportunity to go home and listen to their consitutents' opinions of it.

A recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news -- so likely any biases would cancel each other out -- showed that the general public is 53% opposed to socialized medicine. That's kinda the same margin that swept the Comrade into the White House, isn't it? By the same poll, and also Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking poll, the Comrade's popularity seems to rise and fall tied to socialized medicine. He's at an all-time low right now -- in the low 40% approval range -- even according to polls done by the likes of the Washington Post, which probably cheers him on. The Comrade did get a little and temporary boost when he decided to send troops to Afghanistan.

Anyway, from what I've heard, the Republicans, who apparently also are reading the polls, have decided that "nyet" and "obstructionism" might not be such a bad thing in regard to socialized medicine. Right. Glad they finally figured that out. DeMint and Coburn have always been outspoken on the issue, as have other Republicans. I'm just glad they've finally found the stones to do whatever they can to block this garbage legislation. The nation is behind them -- or as behind them as the nation ever gets.

Matter of fact, being a reader of the Congressional Globe, the 19th century forerunner to the Congressional Record, which documents all the palaver in congress, it struck me a little while back that the Republicans -- or someone -- should insist on having these mammoth bills read on the floor. That's in the congressional rules, you know. The bills are supposed to be read when they're introduced (got that from the old Globe.) Usually, reading the bills is waived, but it has to be waived by a unanimous vote of the chamber. One member of congress wants it read aloud, and it must be read aloud.

In addition, according to these same polls, more people would rather have NO HEALTH CARE REFORM AT ALL than the socialized medicine legislation from either the House or the Senate.

So, good move, DeMint and Coburn. Insisting they be read on the floor may be the only way to really find out what the hell is in these bills, as well as being an effective obstructionist tactic.

Please. Feel free to throw up as many roadblocks as you can devise. The American public applauds you. We've had our fingers crossed all these many months that something like this would happen.

On another, but closely related subject. Saw Glenn Beck today, and he reported on a item that appeared in the Weekly Standard. OK. So Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is something of a Blue Dog Democrat -- conservative. He seriously questions the abortion provisions in the socialized medicine bill and a bunch of other things. Like, in his state, if payments to doctors for Medicare are reduced even further, you won't be able to find too many doctors in Nebraska. It's a largely agricultural and rural state, with not a lot of doctors to begin with. Underpay them, and they won't be able to survive.

So the revelation from the Weekly Standard and Glenn Beck is that someone from the White House, possibly Ram Emanuel, contacted Senator Nelson's office and threatened to shut down Offut Air Force Base if Nelson doesn't fall into line and vote "yes" on socialized medicine. Offut is in Nebraska and is the home base of what used to be called the Strategic Air Command. You know, in those old Cold War movies, when the people in the underground bunkers watched missiles sailing across the US borders.... you know how they always showed these Air Force pilots scrambling into fighter jets? That was the Strategic Air Command.

Actually, the way it's done now, I believe, is that some of those jets are constantly airborne and ready to attack at any moment to defend US borders. But I'm not sure about that.

So the White House wants to shut down Offut? And move 100+ islamic terrorists to Illinois. Hey, you know what? Why not just touch off a couple atom bombs in the Heartland and get it over with, Jackass. I mean, what do the Democrats care, as long as they get socialized medicine? These people are... I really don't want to use that kind of language.

Anyway, that's extortion pure and simple. That's politics Chicago-style. Nothing is beneath these slimebags. It boggles the mind.

So anything the Republicans can come up with to stop the assault on the nation from the Merry Marxists will guarantee those Republicans a place in history. That is, if the nation does manage to survive this administration. That remains to be seen.

But I'm beginning to feel hopeful again.

(And I'm sorry. I had to edit this three times! I'm very tired.)

Transparency, White House style

The Comrade was just on TV delivering a brief sales pitch on socialized medicine. He claims opponents of the bill -- which include about 57% of the US population -- are using scare tactics to defeat socialized medicine. Then he goes on to say that without socialized medicine, families will go without health insurance, businesses won't be able to provide insurance for employees, and Medicare will go bankrupt.... in short, using a bunch of scare tactics to sell socialized medicine.

He says "there's a broad consensus" in favor of the bill -- only the US public doesnt want it, and the senate can't pass it. So where is this consensus, outside the Comrade's own fevered imagination? I suppose the majority of the cabinet supports it, and probably everyone the Comrade talks to. (He doesn't talk to Republicans or the public, mainly only to Andy Stern, head of SEIU, and other radical marxists.)

He says "we invite everyone, including member of the press, to scrutinize the bill." In order to do this, Comrade, you've got to make the bill public, which no one has yet. It was written behind closed doors, and now, with recent changes, apparently resides behind a different set of closed doors while the Congressional Budget Office assesses how much it will cost. This is not exactly transparent, is it? Even Dick(head) Durbin, Senate majority whip, noted that he hadn't been allowed to see it.

The Comrade is such a huge liar. It would be comical except that it promises to destroy us all and the nation. White is black to him, black is white. We're supposed to believe him rather than our own perceptions and logic.

You see, this is where "enlightenment" comes in and living "by your own lights" -- the ability to use your own brain and your own judgment, rather than just blindly following leaders or obeying out of fear of reprisal. It's indispensable to political freedom.

What is increasingly more and more transparent is that the Comrade is a monumental liar. No lie is beneath him. He seems to think that if he says something, everyone will believe him rather than the facts at hand. 'Course, there are no facts at at hand in this case due to the "transparency" of the senate bill so far, so.....

On the plus side, apparently the senate took the government option out of the bill, as well as the promise to entirely destroy Medicare by overburdening a system that's already tottering on the brink of bankruptcy. I think they dropped that provision. I didn't notice the Comrade giving out any facts, just doing his usual socialist-promotion shtick. However, that's what the news people said.

And let's give Joe Lieberman a big hug for not caving under pressure from the White House and the political majority. Though I don't agree with him on a lot of things, Joe Lieberman seems to be an honorable man. A rare and valuable treasure in Washington DC.

When they're down, kick them

I have absolutely no idea what's in the proposed legislation to regulate the banking and credit industry. Don't know and frankly, am afraid to look.

Despite the Comrade and his Merry Marxists' remarks about George Bush single-handedly destroying the US economy, what really caused the collapse was feel-good legislation.

You may not recall that the so-called "Dot-Com Bubble" burst towards the beginning of year 2001. The economy was already slipping into a recession, which was overshadowed by the islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center later that year. The events of 9/11 only further wrecked the economy -- by bringing it to a screeching halt for a couple days and then throwing the nation into a state of uncertainty.

So how to boost the economy? Hmmm, let's see. There was something called the CRA, the Credit something Act (could it be "redistribution"?), passed in the 1990s, I believe. What this did was give whoever was in charge the authority to bully the banks into giving mortgages to the unemployed, the poor, apparently any ol' vagrant who needed a place to stay. So the Fed and others meddling in financial affairs began to lean heavily on the banks to extend these ill-advised mortgage loans.

Well, there was a lot of building going on, for a while. The money trickled around, for a while. Then the bill came due, and in October, 2008, the whole house of cards came crashing down. The insurance industry was deeply impacted because, after all, the insurance industry covers construction, but also because all those bad mortgages ended up in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funds, backed by the "full faith and credit of the USA." Insurance companies had invested in the crappy mortgage loans.

So now we're supposed to believe that congress suddenly has gained an in-depth and useful understanding of the financial industry? God knows, they've done wonders with TARP and the Stimulus Bill, haven't they? I mean, things are booming, aren't they? Apparently they are inside the Beltway, because the government and government employment is expanding by leaps and bounds. But the private economy is still on its back.

Honestly, I shudder to think what congress might do to the financial industry. It's not like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and anyone else in the House leadership has any faint idea of how financing actually works. I suspect they're just trying to establish regulations that will force banks to pass out hundred-dollar bills to anyone who steps up to the window. Isn't that how the CRA mortgage thing worked (or didn't work.)

But the Comrade says he didn't run for office to help "Fat Cat Bankers." Well, Comrade, they're citizens, too. Unfortunately you represent all of us. The presidency and vice presidency are the only offices in the US that represent all the people. And apparently, the Comrade believes he can just raid the piggy banks of all the financial institutions in the nation, and all will be well. I doubt it.

For one thing, a lot of those financial institutions are still dealing with all those "toxic assets" created by the Fed's loaning guidelines and the CRA legislation. No one has completely recovered from that yet. For another thing -- and this is a big one -- the state and federal governments are now competing in a big way for credit. When there are large government deficits, government borrowing tends to crowd out the private sector. I wonder how many banks are buying T-Bills (US Treasury notes) rather than lending to Joe SixPack to expand his HVAC business.

And, for that matter, how many voters elected the Comrade to pour the nation's treasure into groups like ACORN or to fork it all over to SEIU? Or to give Al Gore-Nancy Pelosi-funded green companies huge doses of investment and all kinds of legislative and unlegislated regulatory "encouragement" at taxpayer expense.

The ten most chilling words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

What additonal horrors can we expect as Washington "fixes" the financial industry?

The new world order

I think I figured it out.... Anyone remember some time ago in Red China when Mao -- still alive -- sponsored some kind of renewal and commitment to his brand of totalitarian communism? Children were encouraged to rat out their parents if the parents spoke seditiously about freedom and rights at home. Many of the kids did do this. Their parents ended up in re-education camps, if they were allowed to live that long.

So in the US now, the Comrade and the Democrats are encouraging the quick deaths of everyone over 55. That is, they're reducing Medicare support for seniors, at the same time expanding the category of those who'll be stuck with Medicare.

The idea is to do away with anyone who remembers freedom, and to get rid of them as quickly as possible, before they poison the minds of innocent youth, who are naive enough to believe Santa Claus lives in the White House -- since that's been pounded into their brains since kindergarten.

Older people and, generally, "parents," tend to be authorities who can successfully compete with government. Are the kids going to listen to their parents, who love and care for them, or to the Comrade, who regards them as cannon fodder for a marxist state? Well, then, lets get rid of their parents. The USA is essentially too soft and civilized to go the route of Red China. Better strategy in the USA is to just let the elders die of neglect. As quickly as possible.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't argue in favor of Medicare. It is, after all, a huge, wasteful, and ultimately destructive government-run socialized medicine scheme. Like the misnamed "Social Security." However, over decades -- over the lifetimes of a couple generations now -- the government has appropriated the incomes of its citizens to underwrite this bullshit. These appropriated funds, poured down the rat-hole of socialized pensions and health care, could have been re-invested in private enterprise to assure a vibrant capitalist system and supply retired folks with a viable income. But they weren't. And the money's gone now. So the elderly are truly dependent on government aid and assistance.

Easy to dispose of them and the information they've collected, based on real-life experience over decades.

Isn't this what the Comrade's youth workers voted for, in their little red t-shirts with the hammer-and-sickle? Have any of them found jobs yet, by the way?

On another subject....

Watched Alford, the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce, on Glenn Beck. He was saying how even Conyers (D-Mich.) is beginning to question the Comrade.

Hey, black folks, don't you get it? Franklin Roosevelt recruited blacks as voters when he lost the rich with his communist schemes. FDR, and just about every Democrat since then, has regarded the black community as a blindly loyal source of support. Throw them a few bones -- AFDC and the Civil Rights Act -- and they'll be in your corner forever. The leadership doesn't expect and clearly doesn't want black folks to actually exercise their rights and their intellect. The leadership just wants blacks to support them in everything they do. And unfortunately, many blacks do.

I mean, look at Al Sharpton whining that Tiger Woods' whores are all white chicks. He urges Tiger and others like him to screw some black women, spread the wealth around to the black community. Hey, Al, ever consider that maybe black women have more self-respect?

Jesse Jackson is sort of a joke anymore. People have noticed that, although he's never had a real job, he's a friggin' millionnaire. Where did all that money come from? The so-called "charitable" organizations he worked with? How did it end up in his hands, instead of being applied to his social causes?

Michelle Obama helped the larger hospitals in Chicago to turn away poor blacks. She found some kind of loophole to allow the hospitals, which are located smack-dab in the middle of the black communities, to refuse to accept poor blacks in need of health care. They were sent down the street to over-burdened, badly-funded clinics (no doubt operated by groups like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push.)

Alford noted that the unions have always been racist and that many of the jobs created by the Stimulus Bill are going to white union labor imported from miles away from the work sites. A friend of mine, a white guy, was working for the USPS when black workers there decided to form their own union because the existing, largely white union, refused to accept them as members. My friend supported the black union and even joined the black union. The police found him beaten to death in his apartment. No one was ever arrested for it. The case was never investigated. It was regarded as a "suicide." Like those Freedom Riders in Mississippi? Is it really possible to crush your own skull?

So, let's get a black guy into the presidency, one who's so narcissistic, so ambitious and unprincipled he's willing to sell out other blacks. Well, there was a kid named Obama working for "social justice" on the South Side..... He's a dedicated marxist, doesn't care about color, except as a political tool -- in the typical Chicago style.

This is all so tragic.

All this socialist crap isn't helping anyone and isn't intended to help anyone. It's all to consolidate power in the hands of a few sociopaths -- as usual. It's a story repeated over and over again through human history. The USA was constructed through a conscious effort to ensure that this kind of abuse of power could never happen here. Well, it's happening here. And there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. The totalitarians are using the limitations and other roadblocks built into the Constitution to preserve freedom -- they're using those provisions to empower themselves. Kinda like the way the islamic terrorists used American freedoms to hijack passenger planes and fly them into the World Trade Center. In America, anyone can get on a passenger plane. Anyone can run for office. And apparently anyone can win an office.

Will there be enough of the USA left to salvage next year? Even if the Democrats lose their majority in congress, the executive branch is right now so busily consolidating its own power -- look at the totalitarian EPA -- that congress will be irrelevant by then. In addition, the executive branch, with the Fed, has its own operating budget now, and seems to believe it can spend anyway it wants, with or without consent of congress. Matter of fact, congress is right now voting to give them another $1.1 TRILLION to play with.

So I ask you again, is this what you voted for? Is this what you want for the USA?