With the state of American politics today, it takes a lot to shock me but today I am again completely shocked. Sen. Max Baucus, a democrat from Montana, explained his failure to read the Obamacare bill prior to voting on it.
"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."
I'm sorry. I thought we voted for you because you were to be the expert. Your office defines your expertise. If you don't understand it, how the heck are your constituents supposed to understand it?
The level of logical and ethical perversity to make this statement boggles my mind.
What's next? Do we outsource our experts from India or equatorial Africa? I met a lot of Ghanaians who were quite intelligent and well educated in English. I bet they could get a low bid on statutory expertise.
Next time you call your democrat senator or other elected officials, will you get a calling center in New Dehli?
What's even more amazing is that this quote is not a head line on the big newspapers. Some people think well of the New York Times, I certainly don't. Their failure to run this on their front page for a week is part of why I feel that way. Instead, it's buried near the bottom of a newspaper called the Flathead Beacon.
The Europeans are a good lesson for us to watch, but I fear it is too late. Daniel Hannan, a Brit member of the European Parliament who is against the concept of a European Parliament, reports the latest shenanigans in the EU. It seems that the EU has created a vast foreign office. This was done quietly and over time, they have had a huge budget for quite some time without officially existing. They now are official and much larger. The citizens of the various countries have little impact on what happens in their name and with their money, the EU government is a leviathan that is consuming with seemingly little in the way of objection by its people.
In our nation, the federal government is constrained by the tenth amendment and the Bill of Rights and various other amendments to be of limited power. To restrain any one branch of government from getting too powerful, a scheme of checks and balances was created. The president can't create laws, the congress can't enforce them, and the judiciary is independent and can stop either branch with its paper pronouncements. The people are responsible for not allowing the judiciary to be ignored, though it has happened from time to time. Andrew Jackson famously declared that "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
That balance of powers has a major flaw whose results we're now seeing only too plainly. Rather than limit the power of government, our checks and balances have finally served to limit only the people's checks on the extent of each branch's power. The perversion started quite some time ago, becoming most noticeable during Reconstruction, with major expansions made after Roosevelt's attempt at court packing and the New Deal, and then the Warren Court's rewriting of the legal landscape, and now finally the Pelosi/Reid Congress for the past four years has loosed all restraints. That's not meant to let either party off the hook, both parties and all three branches of government are equally guilty.
When you study for the bar exam, one of the hints in the subject of Constitutional law is that if an answer offered is the Tenth Amendment, it will always be the wrong answer. The Tenth Amendment has so little power that even in academia it is given no regard whatsoever.
The checks and balances between the branches of the federal government failed to check the power of the federal government. It only succeeded in protecting each branch's share of power, and each branch is more than happy to expand its own power. That is, each branch retains its portion of the power by not allowing the executive to control the purse strings, etc., but there has been no check or balance on the federal government's taking power from the states or the people. The 17th Amendment ended the states' input on federal power.
The only remaining check on federal power has been the ballot box, and that has proven to be singularly ineffective. With each encroachment of power, the people have become more and more used to ceding self-determination, more and more used to receiving federal benefits and entitlements, and more and more used to accepting government presence in every part of their lives.
Just as Europeans have no ability to stop the EU leviathan from expanding its power, despite widespread disapproval in several referenda, so too are we succumbing to grotesque over reaches of federal power.
I became interested in Azerbaijan after serving with an Azerbaijani Army unit in Haditha, Iraq. They were very nice men and very disciplined soldiers and I enjoyed working with them. When I returned to the US I very briefly stayed in contact with one Captain, though we have lost touch after only a few emails and I would occasionally peruse the English language website, Today.Az. I also wrote a paper on comparative law that centered on Azerbaijan and its relations with Europe and the West, and their past associations with the Soviet Union. In the past, the articles on the website tended to be about the US bases that were being planned, the ongoing struggle to get their oil to the west, and relations with Europe and the US.
Now, the tables have turned. Today I see the same old articles proclaiming their belligerence and hatred of Armenia, but now they have a different flavor. One article is about the Presidents of Azerbaijan, Russian and Armenia meeting in St. Petersburg. Another is about the Russian company, Gazprom, offering to buy all of Azerbaijan's oil. Still another is about how they might adopt Islamic banking practices.
It seems to me that Azerbaijan no longer considers the US or Europe to be reliable. They are caving in to the threatening stance of Russia. They were quite open about wanting to disassociate from Russia after three quarters of a century of domination and abuse, but now they are getting cozy again.
Our new hopey changey foreign policy has squandered an opportunity to gain faithful allies in the Caucasus region. I wonder if they will trust us again.
"Her legacy in the larger hearing world today is one of the saccharine sweet triumph of the individual over personal adversity (with the help of a determined educator-hero). Gone is her call for international working-class solidarity and her clear revolutionary vision."
Read at the link to see more of her horrible ideology.
Personally, I agree with the presentation of Keller's story without the introduction of her political opinions. Her accomplishments are inspiring and make us aware of the potential that can be hidden in so many people.
That she was a smart lady in no way excuses her perverse and radical, violent advocacy of marxism and communism.
Why is this worth mentioning? When her story is so inspirational otherwise, why should I bring this up with seemingly no other context?
Because it's a way to show how strong a movement the communist ideology had in this country back then. Back in the twenties and thirties, communism, Freudianism, and a few other crackpot ideas were quite the fad among many of the self-identified intelligentsia. Eleanor Roosevelt associated with many marxists, though most historians think she was not one herself: I suppose they consider her too much of a ding bat to have such intentional associations though I've seen no such evidence of that. Her husband's closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, was a soviet spy who tried to assist in supplying the USSR with nuclear material and technology.
Clearly marxism was very popular and powerful here in the United States. Despite that, it has never gotten mass popularity among Americans. Most Americans, then as now, favor rugged individualism and free enterprise, even if they often and vacantly mouth slogans that might indicate otherwise. When truly socialist ideas are presented, Americans tend to balk at them.
Back then, marxists such as Helen Keller tended to be open about their ideas. The result of the House Unamerican Activities Commission and the McCarthy hearings is that most of the movers and shakers in the marxist movement began to be more discreet.
This is not an international black helicopter conspiracy. It is an ideology. The ideology did not die when the cold war ended, in fact it was again freed from the association of murderous Stalinism and was able to flourish again as being acceptable. Marxists never disappeared from our society, the influential ones just learned to be less open about the name of their ideas.
We are now living through the triumph of marxism in our nation. Nothing B. Hussein has done, and very little of what he has said distinguishes him from the ideology of his openly marxist friends.
Does Anyone Even Remember What Freedom is Anymore?
Does Anyone Even Remember What Freedom is Anymore?
Ayn Rand once commented that many young people seem to think that freedom means being able to drink either Pepsi or Coca Cola, dressing however they want, or listening to the style of music they prefer. Even in their darkest days, she wrote, not even the Soviet Union dictated musical styles to people, or told them how to dress.
I think her perspective is even more germane today. Our civics discussions still claim that we are a free country, but I'm not seeing where all that freedom exists.
Yeah, you can choose between coke and pepsi, but can you start a business without government approval? Can you hire people without onerous taxes and regulations? Can you use salt on your food in the New York City? My grandmother worked her entire life as a housekeeper, I don't think she ever asked anyone's permission, definitely not the government's, to conduct that business. Just try doing that today. Back in the early 90's on many military bases, you were not allowed to have the neighbor's kid babysit your children for the evening without her getting certified and licensed by the base. The ostensible reason was to protect the children, but everyone knew the real reason was to grant the base day care center a monopoly. Can you imagine the impact to business if this mentality is extended to the entire country? It's coming if we're not careful.
What do we have that makes us free? Surely there must be something. Two hundred and thirty-five years ago we rebelled against the British for a long list of abuses listed in the Declaration of Independence. Most of their complaints seem quite tame by today's standards.
When the government controls your health, they control your life. The government has in the past declared that firearms ownership is a health issue for the Center for Disease Control to monitor. The government wants to wage war against obesity. With the government controlling our access to medicine and doctors, they will have total control over our lives. You want to get that MRI? Well, you need to stop eating so much. You need antibiotics? Well, you should have kept a better log of your exercise regimen. Controlling the health care industry gives the government the power to control your guns, your cigarettes, and your cheeseburgers, not to mention your life and death. The government has gotten close to criminalizing the weather.
People wonder at the animosity and acrimony in politics today, and wonder why it's gotten so bad. The more power the government wields, the more vigorous the disagreements on how to wield that power will be. Our federal government has risen to nearly omnipotent power now and the debate has become quite vigorous.
What makes a people free? The word has been defined down to being almost meaningless.
No one has said it more clearly and thoroughly as Charles Krauthammer. If you love this country and want to understand what's happening, read this. It is not an accident. This is planned.
The article is quite long, but worth every minute of your life spent reading it and understanding it.
Listening to B. Hussein's Oscar Nobel Peace Prize acknowlegement speech today reminded me of another person awarded the Nobel Peace Price Oscar for exactly the same reason. Neither deserved it.
You've got to be kidding me. I'm awake in the early morning to watch the LCROSS mission bomb into the moon, wishing I were the forward air controller for it, and all the news stations are reporting the B. Hussein has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
So has the Nobel committee become so entrenched by the international socialist movement that they don't even need the man to do anything at all to award him?
Yeah, this highlights the value of the Al Gore and Jimmy Carter awards. What a complete joke.
Why is B. Hussein fixated on bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016? He's ignoring his generals who are trying to get him to make a decision about how to wage a war in order to go to Copenhagen to debase himself and our nation by begging a bunch of corrupt people to name his adopted home town as the site for the Olympics.
What if, as is likely, the Olympic Committee isn't impressed by The Won and chooses a different city for the Olympics? How will that make him – and us – look after he is snubbed?
Why is he stooping so low?
I can think of many reasons.
1. His health care plans are getting a lot of attention from the population, and especially strong attention from people who normally don't bother reacting about politics. He's diverting attention from his attempts to nationalize the healthcare industry. The more people talk about Chicago and the Olympics, the less they talk about "death panels" and public options.
2. No Olympics City has ever made money. The only real reason to host the Olympics is to show off your city. And to grease local politicians' hands. B. Hussein has a lot of people that owe him favors or that he owes favors. His retribution against Blogojovech indicated to me that he is not finished with the petty power plays within that gangster-ridden city.
3. The year of these Olympics will be the last year of a second term if he gets one. If he succeeds in getting Chicago named as the host for the games, he will use this to trumpet his own name and use it for his own glorification. He will make it clear to the world that these would be the "O"-lympics. Never pass up an opportunity to glorify the dear leader.
4. There's a perverse sort of logic in diverting his attention away from Afghanistan, with the very predictable reaction from the opposing party that he is misplacing his priorities. Men are dying in foreign lands, and he's stiff arming his generals while schmoozing in Copenhagen. This helps him by magnifying interest in Afghanistan which otherwise was being ignored. Increased interest in Afghanistan is not important to him except that it detracts interest from his marxist takeover of healthcare.
It's really a no-brainer that he do this, considering the type of man that he is – egomaniacal, hubristic, and venal.
I'm not saying that he's a brilliant political tactician. He really doesn't seem to think above the level of bare knuckle city politics. He certainly doesn't have any interest in looking out for anyone but himself and his own boundless ego.
How do you transform a thriving democratic nation into a socialist/marxist state? Just look at Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez is omnipresent. He has his own tv shows. He wins elections by a combination of voter intimidation, fraud, and pandering with bread and circuses. The government of Venezuela wasn't changed, Chavez just took over while the people just watched in stunned disbelief.
Now look what's happening here. B. Hussein was elected by a combination of voter intimidation (armed black panthers patrolled outside polling places in some areas), fraud (ACORN has had multiple instances of its workers being jailed for proven fraud), and by pandering with bread and circuses. Our government isn't changing, we're just watching in stunned disbelief while B. Hussein consolidates his power.
Friedrich Hayek, the famous political philosopher and economist, taught that socialism at first attracts many people because of a concern to help the needy, but eventually it attracts those who like to be the ones deciding who gets and who doesn't get handouts. This is true not only in deciding the level of poverty for receiving welfare, and not only for the death panels that will decide who lives and who dies with a state monopoly on medical care; it is also true of which businesses get support from the government.
So now we're seeing the administration attempting to intimidate businesses for speaking out against B. Hussein's political policies. This Chicago style politics is not new, but clearly has advanced to a higher level than before. With total control and ownership of many banks and most of the car manufacturing industry, not only is B. Hussein getting quasi legal power over private business, he's also shown how he intends to quiet dissent. He can threaten companies with either never getting government handouts or contracts, or he can nationalize them pretty much at will, or he can threaten them with "investigations" which is a very creepy precedent.
I'm all for the idea that businesses shouldn't be getting handouts from the government, but the fact is that with rising socialism we have gotten to the point that many businesses can no longer survive if they must compete against all the other companies that get these handouts or contracts.
This is perhaps the most fundamental problem with socialism. Yeah, it's wrong to give one person's money to another person because that is essentially theft, but that is petty corruption. The real problem is not the loss of money by individuals, though that is bad enough by itself. The big problem is that socialism gives the govenrment power, and that attracts those that like to wield power for their own benefit.
If the government's power is limited, then there is less they can do, and there is less power to fight over. The key to civilizing politics is to limit the power of government.
Instead we're getting Chicago style politics, inspired by the cult of personality of the likes of Hugo Chavez. There's no need to be like Castro and Che and murder so many people when all you need to do is control who gets what in medical care or business. Then the nation will gladly worship the dear leader, and fawn at his daily television broadcasts. There's no need at all for such overt acts when all you have to do is be like Hugo, and smile your way into despotic power over a nation that will not rouse itself to protest so long as it gets its bread and circuses.
Don't Kid Yourself, Acorn's Objectives aren't Dead
Don't Kid Yourself, Acorn's Objectives aren't Dead
Many anti-liberals are trumpeting the supposed demise of ACORN following revelations that they were actively promoting child prostitution nationwide and using government funds to promote it.
Congress appears to have acted quite quickly to cut off funding to ACORN, essentially destroying them.
But let's get something straight here. Unless and until either someone high in their ranks goes to jail for this racket, there is not going to be an end to what they're doing. Does anyone really think that their purpose was really to help with housing problems? Nope. They existed to get people to vote for democrats, either real people or ficticious people and they existed to keep cronies of the democrat party well fed and well funded.
Even if this defunding succeeds, I have no doubt that another organization will come to the fore almost immediately to do these real functions of ACORN, and I have little doubt that all the same people will be involved.
During his campaign to become our first overt marxist president, B. Hussein said that he would lower the oceans and perform other miracles. As cynical as I am, even I took this to be simple hyperbole. Maybe in bad taste, but nothing more than political hyperbole.
My cynicism has jumped into high gear. Now, B. Hussein equates himself with god while talking to religious leaders.
His exact quote, in referring to his healthcare plans, and in reaction to Sarah Palin's description of "death panels" that would give the government the power to decide which of us is to live or die, was, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."
I have never in my life heard anyone, much less the President, make such an outrageous claim to divine power. I don't think even George III or his ancesters had the gumption to be on a par with God in any matter, let alone in deciding who gets medical care to live or die.
Was this supposed to quell the fears raised by Sarah Palin?
If I weren't an atheist, I would be seriously wondering if this man were the anti-Christ. Everything he has done so far seems to have the intended effect of destroying our national wealth and prestige.
But let's examine this a bit deeper. Could he just be a rube and not realize the meaning of his own words? Let's look at one other factor in this incident.
The comment came during a conference call with religious leaders. It would seem that he should be taking their reactions and sensibilities into account. But just maybe he really is that stupid?
No. He's not. It was intentional.
According to the Washington Jewish Week, (hat tip to my former squadron mate, Beege) the background music while the Jewish religious leaders were waiting for The Oneself to come on line was "Deutschland Über Alles."
Do you know how hard you would have to look to find that song being played? This was the national anthem of the nation that tried to exterminate Jews as though they were rodents.
People made fun of Bush for supposedly making the world hate the United States. Personally, I never saw that. I saw a bunch of people that hated us already and this being blamed on Bush. On the other hand, B. Hussein has deliberately gone out of his way to insult nation after nation, excepting marxist nations that is, in the crudest ways. And now he is insulting an important supportive voting bloc, Reform Jews, very intentionally.
I can't really express the depth of fear I have for our nation. He really seems to be taking on all the characteristics of Bolshevism.
B. Hussein's comments calling a cop's actions stupid show remarkably poor judgment. On the one hand he says he doesn't know the facts, yet he still spouted off despite professing to not know what happened.
It's hard to believe anyone in his position could be so irresponsible, or someone with legal training (well, he never passed the bar exam, so far as I know) could be so reckless.
So is he stupid? Is he reckless?
Or is he just doing his best to keep his communist healthcare plan out of the news and off peoples' minds?
If people talk about his communist takeover of our economy, they increasingly grow alarmed and even his own party is backing off of it. If he can get people to stop looking at that and pay attention to an idiot picking a fight with a cop, then he might be able to get enough votes under the radar to complete his dastardly plans.
He's almost like some mad villian in a bad hollywood movie.
He's spent a lifetime vacillating and politicking. He even took credit for winning the Persian Gulf War when he wasn't even a field commander.
He's gotten a lot of leg's up in his career for being black. Then he declared himself a republican. I'm not sure why since he hasn't once expressed a principle that might be similar to anything that the republican party claims to hold to.
Then he went with the flow and ignored B. Hussein's marxist ideology and supported him for the presidency, even though he contributed money to McCain to help him secure the republican nomination.
Powell, along with every other black voter, about 90%, in this country that voted for Obama, proved that whites are not generally racists, but blacks are. Blacks vote for a man based solely on the color of his skin.
So now, Powell has buyer's remorse. Screw him. It's about time the country starts ignoring this opportunistic, squeamish loser.
The democrats are enacting marxist laws. They are ignoring the minority party for the most part and now have enacted a "cap and trade" bill without even telling the minority party what is in the bill.
So what's the problem with that? Nothing really. The election was in November. Our form of government works this way. November is the time for voters to prevent such abuse. We didn't. We gave one party absolute control of the government. There's not much we can do about it now.
I heard one obnoxious right-wing radio guy (Hannity, whom I can't stand) rail on and on about how you have to call your congressman and help stop this. But it's too late for that. They can do whatever they want without regard for voters.
It's easy to point a finger and blame the dictator. And to be sure the dictator is the focus of the blame, but his guilt doesn't absolve the rest of the guilty.
One man can't be a dictator. It's impossible. Not even a small cadre can do it, especially in a country with a tradition of democracy, individual rights and property rights. Chavez can only be a dictator with the support of a lot of people. Maybe not a majority of the people, but still it takes a lot of supporters to be a dictator.
Some might support the dictator from love for him. Some might support him for a desire to share in the spoils. Some might support him out of apathy. And some might support him out of fear.
Regardless, these supporters are all equally guilty. Fear is no reason to excuse guilt. We might sympathize with those in fear, but we should never excuse their crime.
A variation on this theme is the blame for the situation in Iran. There are many, many people who buy into the theory that the United States orchestrated the rise to power of the Shah. This is preposterous on its face. There are millions of people living in Iran. A handful of American agents cannot create power over those millions without the acquiescence and active support of a sizable part of the population. Whenever a population chooses to resist the CIA in regime change, they succeed without a sweat. Cuba still is communist. Iraq's dictator did not fall until we brought in a few divisions of soldiers and Marines.
A people are responsible for the government they allow to rule them. This has always been true, whether the people understood it or not. It is a hallmark of modern international law, and the reason for its failure to encourage peace in the Middle East and everywhere it is applied, that people are held blameless for their government's actions.
If the people of a nation were held to be accountable for the evils perpetrated by that nation, there would be fewer dictatorships around.
Venezuelans may not, as a majority, support their dictator, but many do. The people in the best position to do something about a dictatorship are the people supporting him. When their peers fail to act, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Who's to blame for Venezuela? The people of Venezuela, that's who.
Blogging has been light because I'm in a continuous state of disbelief as to what has been happening in our nation. The clearest indication that my reaction is proper is provided by the former Soviet state newspaper, Pravda which declares that the United States is rushing headlong into Marxism.
So I guess my stunned reaction is not so undeserved.
Obama has shown a complete mastery of publicly standing for nothing. His latest stunt is a very interesting nuance on that theme. He says he wants to look to the future, not to the past. He's been saying that for a while now.
And there are a lot of politicians that holler one thing and do another. That's not new.
But what The Won has done now is nothing short of brilliant as a demonstration of getting others to do dirty work while he professes to stay above the fray.
He released the classified legal briefs formed for President Bush concerning how different types of torture and maltreatment could be allowed in a twisted and immoral interpretation of law. But then he says, oh, but I don't want to do anything about it knowing darn well that congress will.
Don't misunderstand me. The use of torture, no matter what it may have or may not have gained us in intelligence, was a disastrous and immoral position that will stain the honor of our nation for centuries. Why would any nation strive to copy our form of government if we allow torture and mistreatment of people, no matter how barbaric or vicious they might be? Dick Cheney quipped that if Obama is going to declassify the papers describing the torture and mistreatment allowed, then he should also declassify the results obtained. I have respect for Cheney because I think he is very intelligent, but he is also morally bankrupt on this issue. He is also part of the team that believed that a war can be won using only special forces and limited numbers of people. For all his intelligence, he certainly has no appreciation for human nature and the citizens of nations.
It doesn't matter what intelligence was gained, it was not worth it.
I digress. Back to the point.
B. Hussein has succeeded in stirring up a hornet's nest. His lackeys in the press won't call him out on it, and indeed they have been faithfully parroting his disingenuous protestations that this unprecedented breach of security was innocently intended.
Meanwhile, lawyers who wrote a legal opinion for their client are being threatened with criminal prosecution. The dean of the University of California at Irvine (a very well known man in the legal community) has said, and he made sure that we knew his comparison was intentional and exact, that the writers of these legal opinions were precisely as guilty as the Nazis who slaughtered 6 million Jews.
As he has done all his life, B. Hussein will get to eat his cake and have it too. Others will do the dirty work, while he sits back and lets them do it. This is precisely how he is going to turn this nation into a Soviet Republic of America, the dream of the Communist Party of the United States. He is going to nationalize the banks by converting preferred stocks into voting common stocks and then we will be doomed.
Can you tell that I'm not happy about the way things are going?
Why is B. Hussein fixated on bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016? He's ignoring his generals who are trying to get him to make a decision about how to wage a war in order to go to Copenhagen to debase himself and our nation by begging a bunch of corrupt people to name his adopted home town as the site for the Olympics.