The one thing that I think we conservatives should have learned this week is that we should not be like liberals and think it is good for the courts to make our laws.
Yet most of us hoped apearantly against hope that the United States supreme court would rule the four points of contention in Obamacare as unconstitutional. We especially wanted to see the mandate ruled unconstitutional. Oh yeah, what we forget is that it was. But, through the wisdom of the Chief Justice Douchebrain John Roberts, he said well, if we just change the word mandate to tax, well then it is cool.
And thus, the financial mechanism of Obamacare stands. And that means the law can continue to be implemented.
This past week, we conservatives acted like liberals.
We do not like a said law, in this case Obamacare, and we hoped that a court would rule the whole thing unconstitutional. And for us we ended up pretty disapointed. But the lesson is that we can not and should not depend on the courts to remedy such situations.
As I have heard a lot this week, elections have consequences. And in 2006 and 2008, it appeared that the voters of the United States wanted a change in government management. And the culmination was the election of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Now, throughout the campaign, then Sen. Messiah Barack kept talking about fundamentally changing the United States. He never gave details. One thing that he kept talking about is never, ever raising taxes on the middle class.
Yet once becoming president, the Dear Leader, President Obama, spent one year and a half evenutally passing what is officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, what the rest of us call Obamacare.
And once 2010 rolled around, once again the adage elections have consequences came home again as the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and made substantive gains in the senate.
What the supreme court decision did was make those of us opposed to the full implementation of Obamacare realize that now, we have public opinion on our side, we need to put Republicans in firmer control of the house, retake the senate and win the White House. For it will be the only way to end implementation and repeal Obamacare and come in with better solutions than one-size-fits-all.
Conservatives can not and should not depend on the courts to end an unpopular policy or to implement one that is extraconstitutional. That is what liberals do. And they try to stack the courts with sympathetic judges.
Conservatives have correctly railed how that is not what the judiciary should be about. And we were right then. And while we may have deviated regarding Obamacare, once Republicans are victorious in November, we will be able to legislatively end Obamacare. And that is what we should have been talking about all the way through.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Sooo, The Politics Of The Supreme Court Obamacare Decision
Of course there is politcal fallout from the supreme court decision that essentially upheld Obamacare today.
The Dems are wetting themselves in orgasmic delight that the march to a single-payer health care system, the ultimate goal, can contiue.
Why one of the reactions is from this choice douchebrain, Patrick Gaspard. His tweet:
its constitutional. Bitches. *
Nice. But hey, as noted by Ace, there is another more to the point one.
I will link Ace, but will not write it out here.
Of course the Dear Leader, President Obama, droned on and of course got it wrong by implying the supreme court somehow arrived at its decision so that all Americans can have "affordable" health care.
Wrong, but is not the Dear Leader, President Obama, usually wrong.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney succinctly said to insure this abomination does not take full effect, well you have to replace the current occupant of the White House with him.
So, very, very short term it is a pyhrric victory for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The problem is that the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is still wildly unpopular. And the one thing that the supreme court decision did was state the obvious. That the so-called mandate that all Americans had to purchase health insurance and if not be penalized is in reality a tax.
And guess who suffers in that scenario?
The very middle class that the Dear Leader, President Obama, kept saying he will not raise taxes on.
The reality is that if this abomination is not repealed by a Republican congress and a President Romney, this is how it will indeed become a tax and very primarily on the middle class.
As the link points out, if I am to understand that taxes are only to be raised on the eeeevvvviiiiillll rich fat-cats that make $250,000 a year, that threshold gets a lot lower. If it all happens, $50,000 is the new $250,000.
Say, I fall in that category.
Why damn! Mrs. RVFTLC will be the nouveu-riche in Obamaland.
And as Mr. French points out, the best ad that Team Romney can and should run is the infamous interview between the Dear Leader, President Obama and George Stephanopolous in which four times he says that the mandate is not a tax.
That and pointing out the economy in tatters should be the theme of the Romney campaign.
But more than that is that Mr. Romney must not just say that he and the Republicans will repeal and replace Obamacare. He has to be very clear what the replacement to Obamacare will look like. And he has to address the reality that the lower end of the economic ladder will have to be taken care of in some way.
That is what he has to do.
The gift that the decision gave to the Republicans is that the Democrats have to contort that they will somehow not be raising taxes to pay for Obamacare.
That may be enough to help put the Republicans over the top in November.
The Dems are wetting themselves in orgasmic delight that the march to a single-payer health care system, the ultimate goal, can contiue.
Why one of the reactions is from this choice douchebrain, Patrick Gaspard. His tweet:
its constitutional. Bitches. *
Nice. But hey, as noted by Ace, there is another more to the point one.
I will link Ace, but will not write it out here.
Of course the Dear Leader, President Obama, droned on and of course got it wrong by implying the supreme court somehow arrived at its decision so that all Americans can have "affordable" health care.
Wrong, but is not the Dear Leader, President Obama, usually wrong.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney succinctly said to insure this abomination does not take full effect, well you have to replace the current occupant of the White House with him.
So, very, very short term it is a pyhrric victory for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The problem is that the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is still wildly unpopular. And the one thing that the supreme court decision did was state the obvious. That the so-called mandate that all Americans had to purchase health insurance and if not be penalized is in reality a tax.
And guess who suffers in that scenario?
The very middle class that the Dear Leader, President Obama, kept saying he will not raise taxes on.
The reality is that if this abomination is not repealed by a Republican congress and a President Romney, this is how it will indeed become a tax and very primarily on the middle class.
As the link points out, if I am to understand that taxes are only to be raised on the eeeevvvviiiiillll rich fat-cats that make $250,000 a year, that threshold gets a lot lower. If it all happens, $50,000 is the new $250,000.
Say, I fall in that category.
Why damn! Mrs. RVFTLC will be the nouveu-riche in Obamaland.
And as Mr. French points out, the best ad that Team Romney can and should run is the infamous interview between the Dear Leader, President Obama and George Stephanopolous in which four times he says that the mandate is not a tax.
That and pointing out the economy in tatters should be the theme of the Romney campaign.
But more than that is that Mr. Romney must not just say that he and the Republicans will repeal and replace Obamacare. He has to be very clear what the replacement to Obamacare will look like. And he has to address the reality that the lower end of the economic ladder will have to be taken care of in some way.
That is what he has to do.
The gift that the decision gave to the Republicans is that the Democrats have to contort that they will somehow not be raising taxes to pay for Obamacare.
That may be enough to help put the Republicans over the top in November.
A Bizzare Supreme Court Decision On Obamacare
OK, FWIW, I have written many times that I am not a lawyer and I am not a constitutional expert. That being said, today's supreme court decision regarding Obamacare is a bizzare one to say the least.
Chief Justice John Roberts amazingly saved the Dear Leader, President Obama's, bacon by contorting that the mandate that Americans have to buy health insurance is not cool. But hey, if you call it a tax and I think it is, then its cool and you get to keep the thrust of the abomination known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and move on. And hell, I will join with the four libs to make it happen and it will be a 5-4 decision.
WHOA! Wait a minite! A tax?! But, but, did not our Dear Leader, President Obama, tell former Bill Clinton hack George Stephanopolus not once, not twice, not three but four times the PPACA mandate was NOT a tax? If ye don't believe me, go to this link and see for yourself. And note when Mr. Stephanopolus has to whip out the dictionary to define the word tax, the Dear Leader, President Obama, mocks him.
The Democrat congress that passed this abomination kept saying the same thing. The mandate was not a tax at all.
But when push came to shove in argueing this case before the supreme court, well then the mandate suddendly became. . .a tax.
Again, if ye don't believe me, here it is in the leftywhore media Holy Bible, The New York Times regarding the arguement made before the supreme court in the at the time desperate attempt to save the PPACA.
I guess it turns out it was not so desperate after all.
So let's get to the way ChiefJustice Douchebrain Roberts concluded, yeah, this is a tax and I say so:
3.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
That is directly from the 193 page decision written by ChiefJustice Douchbrain Roberts.
Now why I am calling this dude a douchebrain?
Because he simply did not judge on the merits of the bill, which was 2,700 pages, on the merits as written and passed by congress and signed by the Dear Leader, President Obama. No where in the legislation was the word tax mentioned. Thus, it is how the Democrats kept saying that no, it would not lead to a tax increase on anyone let alone the middle class.
But he simply divined that oh, what is really meant by a penalty is a tax and thus, I'll just make that correction.
Which is not his job.
It is judge on the merits if said legislation is constitutional or not. Not whether the political class lied about some wording.
It was a bad decision by a court that did not want to be seen as blocking the largest government over reach since the New Deal era.
But there is a silver political lining and that is the next post.
Chief Justice John Roberts amazingly saved the Dear Leader, President Obama's, bacon by contorting that the mandate that Americans have to buy health insurance is not cool. But hey, if you call it a tax and I think it is, then its cool and you get to keep the thrust of the abomination known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and move on. And hell, I will join with the four libs to make it happen and it will be a 5-4 decision.
WHOA! Wait a minite! A tax?! But, but, did not our Dear Leader, President Obama, tell former Bill Clinton hack George Stephanopolus not once, not twice, not three but four times the PPACA mandate was NOT a tax? If ye don't believe me, go to this link and see for yourself. And note when Mr. Stephanopolus has to whip out the dictionary to define the word tax, the Dear Leader, President Obama, mocks him.
The Democrat congress that passed this abomination kept saying the same thing. The mandate was not a tax at all.
But when push came to shove in argueing this case before the supreme court, well then the mandate suddendly became. . .a tax.
Again, if ye don't believe me, here it is in the leftywhore media Holy Bible, The New York Times regarding the arguement made before the supreme court in the at the time desperate attempt to save the PPACA.
I guess it turns out it was not so desperate after all.
So let's get to the way Chief
3.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,"
Hooper v. California, 155
That is directly from the 193 page decision written by Chief
Now why I am calling this dude a douchebrain?
Because he simply did not judge on the merits of the bill, which was 2,700 pages, on the merits as written and passed by congress and signed by the Dear Leader, President Obama. No where in the legislation was the word tax mentioned. Thus, it is how the Democrats kept saying that no, it would not lead to a tax increase on anyone let alone the middle class.
But he simply divined that oh, what is really meant by a penalty is a tax and thus, I'll just make that correction.
Which is not his job.
It is judge on the merits if said legislation is constitutional or not. Not whether the political class lied about some wording.
It was a bad decision by a court that did not want to be seen as blocking the largest government over reach since the New Deal era.
But there is a silver political lining and that is the next post.
Monday, June 25, 2012
What Does The Supreme Court Ruling On Arizona's SB 1070 Mean?
Today the United States supreme court in a 5-3 decision struck down three of the four critical components of the Arizona immgration law known in shorthand as Arizona SB 1070.
The four provisions of the law that the court ruled on as follows.
1) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien in Arizona.
2) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and seek and or perform work.
3) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and not complete and or carry immgration documentation.
4) Whether or not law enforcement in the state can verify the immigration status of suspects stopped during investigating another crime.
So, the supreme court, led by the erratic justice, Anthony Kennedy, struck down the first three and allowed the last one to stand.
Although three of the four provisions were struck down, the fourth one being allowed to stand means that there is still a half a mouth of teeth in this law.
Now here is the ruling from the supreme court.
I admit, I am not a legal eagle, and would love commentary from some actual legal eagles.
But my understanding is that the majority believe the the state of Arizona overstepped in assering the right to actually enforce, no assist, federal law.
Yet somehow, the majority said, well it is still OK for local law enforcement, during routine traffic stops primarily, to ask suspects to prove their immgration status.
To me, it is a convoluted split decision that should make no one happy.
Yes, it is obvious that we need to have real immgration reform. It does not nor should it be all comprehensive. It should be in stages. Absolute control of all borders, north, south and the coasts. Once that is acheived, then also in stages deport those here five years or less. Period. Those who have been here five to ten years, they should be able to get work permits, but not a path to citizenship. And those who have been here 11 years plus should be on a pathway to citizenship. No, I have not thought the logistics of it all. But if a lot are deported, we would be dealing with less people in seeking a serious reform. And having the borders secure will make what I propose palatable.
There will never be a perfect plan to please all.
But what we are doing now is almost pointless.
What Arizona did in passing SB 1070 in the first place was react to the inaction of the federal government to the situation along the border of Arizona and Mexico. Throw in New Mexico and Texas and to a lesser extent California.
The federal government did not do its duty according to the state government. And they have been correct.
And the not so dirty secret is this.
NOTHING will be done this year. This is an election year. Once the election is over and it depends on the outcome, then maybe something will be done.
While some aspects of the Arizona law is out, state and local law enforcement will still be able to question the immigration status of suspects in overal determining of a situation in a traffic stop.
Oh, and another thing to count on.
More and more demogogary and misinformation and fear mongering during this presidential campaign season.
The supreme court split itself in trying to have it all ways on this issue and did nothing to bring clarity to the issue of illegal immigration.
Let's hope that they do a better job in their decision regarding Obamacare.
The four provisions of the law that the court ruled on as follows.
1) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien in Arizona.
2) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and seek and or perform work.
3) Whether or not it can be a state crime to be an illegal alien and not complete and or carry immgration documentation.
4) Whether or not law enforcement in the state can verify the immigration status of suspects stopped during investigating another crime.
So, the supreme court, led by the erratic justice, Anthony Kennedy, struck down the first three and allowed the last one to stand.
Although three of the four provisions were struck down, the fourth one being allowed to stand means that there is still a half a mouth of teeth in this law.
Now here is the ruling from the supreme court.
I admit, I am not a legal eagle, and would love commentary from some actual legal eagles.
But my understanding is that the majority believe the the state of Arizona overstepped in assering the right to actually enforce, no assist, federal law.
Yet somehow, the majority said, well it is still OK for local law enforcement, during routine traffic stops primarily, to ask suspects to prove their immgration status.
To me, it is a convoluted split decision that should make no one happy.
Yes, it is obvious that we need to have real immgration reform. It does not nor should it be all comprehensive. It should be in stages. Absolute control of all borders, north, south and the coasts. Once that is acheived, then also in stages deport those here five years or less. Period. Those who have been here five to ten years, they should be able to get work permits, but not a path to citizenship. And those who have been here 11 years plus should be on a pathway to citizenship. No, I have not thought the logistics of it all. But if a lot are deported, we would be dealing with less people in seeking a serious reform. And having the borders secure will make what I propose palatable.
There will never be a perfect plan to please all.
But what we are doing now is almost pointless.
What Arizona did in passing SB 1070 in the first place was react to the inaction of the federal government to the situation along the border of Arizona and Mexico. Throw in New Mexico and Texas and to a lesser extent California.
The federal government did not do its duty according to the state government. And they have been correct.
And the not so dirty secret is this.
NOTHING will be done this year. This is an election year. Once the election is over and it depends on the outcome, then maybe something will be done.
While some aspects of the Arizona law is out, state and local law enforcement will still be able to question the immigration status of suspects in overal determining of a situation in a traffic stop.
Oh, and another thing to count on.
More and more demogogary and misinformation and fear mongering during this presidential campaign season.
The supreme court split itself in trying to have it all ways on this issue and did nothing to bring clarity to the issue of illegal immigration.
Let's hope that they do a better job in their decision regarding Obamacare.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
A New Creepiness In The Presidential Campaign
OK, I am now thoroughly creeped out by the presidential campaign of Team Dear Leader.
It appears that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is so desperate for cash that they would like supporters, I kid you not, getting married to register for people to donate to the Obama/Biden reelection campaign.
If you think it is a joke, here it is:
Yup, just what I would want to do.
Get an invite to a wedding and when the part about where the happy couple are registered and that would show up.
Oh, but please. This is not limited to weddings. No, no, no.
Say, what says Happy Birthday more than giving a gift to Team Dear Leader. Or if you are already married and celebrating that special anniversary, why don't you give a gift to Team Dear Leader.
It is really creepy on a whole lot of layers.
First, it is politicizing special days that people should not be thinking about politics in the first place. And that goes for our side too. FTR, if Team Romney were doing this, I would be just as if not more creeped out. Second, as one that does have good friends that are on the other side politically and or apolitical, I do not want to use special occasions to push my politics on them. All three days are special in their own way to individuals and couples. And said couples should respect the fact that many of their wedding guests or birthday or anniversary party guests may not feel the way that you do on the upcoming election.
Now this kind of gifting is not new.
It is a form of gifting that has been big among the left for a while now.
For instance at All Saint's Episcopal Church, or as it is known on this blog, All Socialist's, there has been what is called the "Alternative Christmas" in which people are encouraged to send gifts to a cause rather than give to each other and or friends, etc. Here is a website dedicated to the concept of an "Alternative Christmas". Now I am not opposed to the concept. I do agree that Christmas has been very commercialized. But I also believe that by and large, people gift each other not out of obligation but out of genuine love and care for each other. But again, I would not want to force that on other people.
But gifting for politicians?
NO FRICKIN' WAY!
But that is not all of the creepiness.
Consider what columnist and activist and now radio talk show host Ben Shapiro got in his e-mail from Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama last week.
OK, now that you have read the link and the message from Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, and are cleaning the mess from your meal from the laughter, let me zero in on the highlight:
OK, I am NOT married to the Dear Leader, President Obama. I don't really care that he shoveled snow back in the day. Now he is shoveling a hoard of manure and dragging this nation down with it.
And I want to be fair.
Team Romney has been doing some unusual shilling. Such as Have a Meal With Mitt. It is donating $3 to $5 bucks for a possibility of joining Mr. Romney for a meal.
That is unusual but at least I don't have to register for people to donate to the Romney campaign instead of giving actual gifts. Same for the birthdays and anniversaries.
I just think that this goes too far. It is one thing to promote a candidate. But to gift him or her, again, NO FRICKIN' WAY!
It appears that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is so desperate for cash that they would like supporters, I kid you not, getting married to register for people to donate to the Obama/Biden reelection campaign.
If you think it is a joke, here it is:
Get an invite to a wedding and when the part about where the happy couple are registered and that would show up.
Oh, but please. This is not limited to weddings. No, no, no.
Say, what says Happy Birthday more than giving a gift to Team Dear Leader. Or if you are already married and celebrating that special anniversary, why don't you give a gift to Team Dear Leader.
It is really creepy on a whole lot of layers.
First, it is politicizing special days that people should not be thinking about politics in the first place. And that goes for our side too. FTR, if Team Romney were doing this, I would be just as if not more creeped out. Second, as one that does have good friends that are on the other side politically and or apolitical, I do not want to use special occasions to push my politics on them. All three days are special in their own way to individuals and couples. And said couples should respect the fact that many of their wedding guests or birthday or anniversary party guests may not feel the way that you do on the upcoming election.
Now this kind of gifting is not new.
It is a form of gifting that has been big among the left for a while now.
For instance at All Saint's Episcopal Church, or as it is known on this blog, All Socialist's, there has been what is called the "Alternative Christmas" in which people are encouraged to send gifts to a cause rather than give to each other and or friends, etc. Here is a website dedicated to the concept of an "Alternative Christmas". Now I am not opposed to the concept. I do agree that Christmas has been very commercialized. But I also believe that by and large, people gift each other not out of obligation but out of genuine love and care for each other. But again, I would not want to force that on other people.
But gifting for politicians?
NO FRICKIN' WAY!
But that is not all of the creepiness.
Consider what columnist and activist and now radio talk show host Ben Shapiro got in his e-mail from Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama last week.
OK, now that you have read the link and the message from Mrs. Dear Leader, Michelle Obama, and are cleaning the mess from your meal from the laughter, let me zero in on the highlight:
For the first 10 years of our marriage, Barack and I lived in an apartment in my hometown of Chicago.
The winters there can be pretty harsh, but no matter how snowy or icy it got, Barack would head out into the cold -- shovel in hand -- to dig my car out before I went to work.
In all our years of marriage, he's always looked out for me. Now, I see that same commitment every day to you and to this country.
The only way we'll win this election is if we can rely on one another like that, all the way to November 6th.
You should know that your recent donation means a lot to both of us.
Barack is working hard, but he can't do this alone -- he needs your help.
Will you make another donation today to build this campaign? When you do, you'll be automatically entered to join Barack and me for a casual dinner:
Your flight, your meal, your accommodations -- that's all taken care of. Just bring yourself and a guest, and get ready to enjoy a good meal together.
We're so grateful that you're out there, ready to keep fighting alongside us from now to November.
Thanks,
Michelle
OK, I am NOT married to the Dear Leader, President Obama. I don't really care that he shoveled snow back in the day. Now he is shoveling a hoard of manure and dragging this nation down with it.
And I want to be fair.
Team Romney has been doing some unusual shilling. Such as Have a Meal With Mitt. It is donating $3 to $5 bucks for a possibility of joining Mr. Romney for a meal.
That is unusual but at least I don't have to register for people to donate to the Romney campaign instead of giving actual gifts. Same for the birthdays and anniversaries.
I just think that this goes too far. It is one thing to promote a candidate. But to gift him or her, again, NO FRICKIN' WAY!
Friday, June 22, 2012
Another Reason Why Gay "Rights" Advocates Set Back Their Cause
You know, I know that the gay community is not anymore monolithic than any other group.
But the following shows why for every step that homosexual rights advocates take toward gaining acceptance, things like this show the immature, and just plain childish approach not becoming of a movement that wants to take itself seriously.
Apparently our Dear Leader, President Obama, invited a slew of homosexual rights advocates to the White House for reception celebrating Gay "Pride" month.
And a couple of the advocates could not control themselves.
Like the children that they are, a couple of these homosexual rights advocates decided to stand in front of the portrait of President Ronald Reagan and proceed to give him the bird.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama thinks that he is so persecuted.
The two suspects, Matthew Hart and Zoe Strauss, were moved to such a mature expression about Mr. Reagan because of an old canard. Well, let me show you the words of Mr. Strauss:
"Yeah, f– Reagan. Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”
Really?! Yeah, I am certain that Mr. Reagan was rubbing his hands together with glee, maybe saying something like "Well, another faggot died from, what is it called? Oh yeah, AIDS." Hey, maybe Mr. Reagan had a list of all the homosexuals that died from AIDS.
That is the canard.
That Ronald Reagan did not care about the outbreak of AIDS. That somehow, he and his administration did not care about AIDS because it affected overwhelmingly homosexual men.
No, Mr. Reagan was concerned like all of us about AIDS.
Like so many people at the time, there was such a limited knowledge about the disease.
But I want to cite this column from Deroy Murdock from a 2003 issue of National Review concerning Mr. Reagan and his response to AIDS.
One thing that is important to note about AIDS. That it was not even identified as what it was until 1982. And roughly $8,000,000 was part of the federal budget in research and the like concerning the disease. By 1984, federal funding for research and a possible vaccine and or cure rose a staggering 694% to $103,000,000. By the time Mr. Reagan left office, the federal government was spending $2,232,000,000.
But, Mr. Reagan did not care about the epidemic.
What a lot of people do not realize about Mr. Reagan is that he came out against a controversial propostiton in 1978 that would have barred open and "activist" homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. It was his opposition that led to the measure's crushing defeat.
I guess Mr. Hart and Miss Strauss must have forgotten about that. Maybe if he was for the measure, it would have passed. And many teachers would have probably been fired. And many may have not even been homosexuals themselves.
Mr. Reagan had a live and let live attitude about homosexuals. After all, the man was in Hollywood all those years. And I am certain that he and everyone else knew who was and who was not a homosexual.
But one should never have expected Mr. Reagan to push the homosexual left agenda. And he did not. And that is why these two dim bulbs will not "forgive" him for "letting" all those homosexuals die in the early days of the epidemic.
But to suggest that Mr. Reagan was openly hostile to homosexuals is wrong. He was not hostile and probably knew quite a few in his day.
So, what does it gain for these two to give the portrait of Mr. Reagan the bird? Nothing. But it once again spotlights the worst in the activist community and what makes many people that may be more like Mr. Reagan, live and let live, have doubts about their maturity. Politically and socially.
And the response from the White House? Rather pathetic if you ask me. Here is Shin Innoye's tepid comment:
“While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”
My question is that this is not something that happened out of plain sight. These two could not have been walking on their own around the White House and flipping off the former president's portrait. There HAD to be other people around if not high level White House personnel. So, where these two shown the door? And if not, why not?
While I, as a conservative, am told constantly how we are the problem in regard to discourse in politics today, what about these two dirt bags? What about the total disrespect that they showed to Mr. Reagan? Actually, to all the presidents that have served this nation? Maybe Mr. Reagan was their wrath, but what about the one that comes by in the future and feel like maybe flipping off Franklin Delano Roosevelt's portrait? You know, the one that ushered in the socialist era in the United States. Oh, I can go on and on.
Here is the thing.
If these activists want to be taken seriously, hey act like it! Be like the rest of us and show some respect. You do not have to like any president's policies, but you don't lower yourself and your cause by doing such a douchebrain thing like these two did. And by not doing anything about it, Team Dear Leader tacitly approves of such behavior.
None of us should tolerate any behavior like this. Left or right.
And if homosexual rights advocates want to ingratiate themselves with middle America, they need to purge douchebrains like this from their ranks.
But the following shows why for every step that homosexual rights advocates take toward gaining acceptance, things like this show the immature, and just plain childish approach not becoming of a movement that wants to take itself seriously.
Apparently our Dear Leader, President Obama, invited a slew of homosexual rights advocates to the White House for reception celebrating Gay "Pride" month.
And a couple of the advocates could not control themselves.
Like the children that they are, a couple of these homosexual rights advocates decided to stand in front of the portrait of President Ronald Reagan and proceed to give him the bird.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama thinks that he is so persecuted.
The two suspects, Matthew Hart and Zoe Strauss, were moved to such a mature expression about Mr. Reagan because of an old canard. Well, let me show you the words of Mr. Strauss:
"Yeah, f– Reagan. Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”
Really?! Yeah, I am certain that Mr. Reagan was rubbing his hands together with glee, maybe saying something like "Well, another faggot died from, what is it called? Oh yeah, AIDS." Hey, maybe Mr. Reagan had a list of all the homosexuals that died from AIDS.
That is the canard.
That Ronald Reagan did not care about the outbreak of AIDS. That somehow, he and his administration did not care about AIDS because it affected overwhelmingly homosexual men.
No, Mr. Reagan was concerned like all of us about AIDS.
Like so many people at the time, there was such a limited knowledge about the disease.
But I want to cite this column from Deroy Murdock from a 2003 issue of National Review concerning Mr. Reagan and his response to AIDS.
One thing that is important to note about AIDS. That it was not even identified as what it was until 1982. And roughly $8,000,000 was part of the federal budget in research and the like concerning the disease. By 1984, federal funding for research and a possible vaccine and or cure rose a staggering 694% to $103,000,000. By the time Mr. Reagan left office, the federal government was spending $2,232,000,000.
But, Mr. Reagan did not care about the epidemic.
What a lot of people do not realize about Mr. Reagan is that he came out against a controversial propostiton in 1978 that would have barred open and "activist" homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. It was his opposition that led to the measure's crushing defeat.
I guess Mr. Hart and Miss Strauss must have forgotten about that. Maybe if he was for the measure, it would have passed. And many teachers would have probably been fired. And many may have not even been homosexuals themselves.
Mr. Reagan had a live and let live attitude about homosexuals. After all, the man was in Hollywood all those years. And I am certain that he and everyone else knew who was and who was not a homosexual.
But one should never have expected Mr. Reagan to push the homosexual left agenda. And he did not. And that is why these two dim bulbs will not "forgive" him for "letting" all those homosexuals die in the early days of the epidemic.
But to suggest that Mr. Reagan was openly hostile to homosexuals is wrong. He was not hostile and probably knew quite a few in his day.
So, what does it gain for these two to give the portrait of Mr. Reagan the bird? Nothing. But it once again spotlights the worst in the activist community and what makes many people that may be more like Mr. Reagan, live and let live, have doubts about their maturity. Politically and socially.
And the response from the White House? Rather pathetic if you ask me. Here is Shin Innoye's tepid comment:
“While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”
My question is that this is not something that happened out of plain sight. These two could not have been walking on their own around the White House and flipping off the former president's portrait. There HAD to be other people around if not high level White House personnel. So, where these two shown the door? And if not, why not?
While I, as a conservative, am told constantly how we are the problem in regard to discourse in politics today, what about these two dirt bags? What about the total disrespect that they showed to Mr. Reagan? Actually, to all the presidents that have served this nation? Maybe Mr. Reagan was their wrath, but what about the one that comes by in the future and feel like maybe flipping off Franklin Delano Roosevelt's portrait? You know, the one that ushered in the socialist era in the United States. Oh, I can go on and on.
Here is the thing.
If these activists want to be taken seriously, hey act like it! Be like the rest of us and show some respect. You do not have to like any president's policies, but you don't lower yourself and your cause by doing such a douchebrain thing like these two did. And by not doing anything about it, Team Dear Leader tacitly approves of such behavior.
None of us should tolerate any behavior like this. Left or right.
And if homosexual rights advocates want to ingratiate themselves with middle America, they need to purge douchebrains like this from their ranks.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
A Real Leader Vs. A Faux Leader
Today when I got home from the day job, the latest issue of The Weekly Standard was in my mailbox and the cover story was The Real Reagan by Fred Barnes.
After reading it not once but twice, what struck me was that Ronald Reagan was truly a real leader. He really did not care so much about the nuts-and-bolts of minutia of the job of being president. But he understood so much about the issues of the day. And much more than he ever let on.
It stands in stark contrast to a faux leader, the Dear Leader, President Barack H. Obama. One never really vetted. One that we have never seen his college transcripts. I mean, after all, unlike Mr. Reagan, the Dear Leader, President Obama, went to Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard law school. And he "wrote" a book before he actually became anything.
Yet as Mr. Barnes points out in the article, Mr. Reagan was portrayed in this manner:
These anecdotes (referring to a story about a movie) may not appear to be terribly significant. But they’re more revealing than I thought at the time, for they undermine the profile of Reagan created by the media, the permanent Washington establishment, political insiders, many Democrats, some Republicans, and even a few members of Reagan’s White House staff. Their idea of Reagan—a bumbling, likable lightweight blessed with good luck and clever aides—wasn’t the Reagan that I encountered. It wasn’t the real Reagan.
Mr. Reagan we have come to find out was really a kind of smart guy after all. Not bad a dude that went to a Christian college, Eureka College in the middle-of-nowhere Illinois.
For instance, Mr. Reagan wrote himself every radio commentary that he delivered while a syndicated commentator in the late 1970s between presidential campaigns. That is something many, including your humble blogger, had no idea. But the book Reagan In His Own Hand shows an engaged person that wrote all the commentaries long form and wrote is the operative word. And courtesy of Mr. Barnes, here are some of the topics he dealt with during that time: Namibia, ocean mining, Cambodia, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, treaties, the B-1 bomber, missile defense, national security strategy, intelligence, Chile, visas, Vladimir Bukovsky, human rights, the Helsinki Accords, Cuba, Rhodesia, the Panama Canal, Guantánamo, Leonid Brezhnev, foreign aid, Palestine, Jamaica, and the United Nations.
But remember folks, Mr. Reagan was but an amiable dunce. He just got lucky.
Where was all of that from the Dear Leader, President Obama? How do we know anything about him? What he really has thought on the major issues of the day? I mean, yeah it is great that he "wrote" not one but two self-serving books before he did anything. But again, why was he not thoroughly vetted the way someone like Mr. Reagan was?
And why is it, even to this day, that Mr. Reagan seemed to be the only one interested in defeating Soviet communism?
As governor of California in 1972, Mr Reagan said that Soviet communism would soon be confined to “dustbin of history.” And he said the same thing 10 years later as president. And the establishment thought to a man and woman that Mr. Reagan was dreaming. If not a little daft. Too bad that by 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. That East and West Germany would be one with the West winning out.
Where is that kind of leadership from the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Understand that the Dear Leader, President Obama, ran as something that he clearly was not.
A mushy moderate.
Since becoming the president, Mr. Obama has driven home the fact that he is the most left-wing president since Lyndon, nope, Lynchin' Baines Johnson. And for sure even more to the left than Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
On issue after issue, Mr. Obama is almost at odd with the very people that elected him in the first place.
A leader has to sometimes make adjustments, even if he or she does not want to.
So yes, Mr. Reagan did raise taxes while president. But in the end, he enacted the largest tax reform to date. So many of us conservatives can forgive the tax hikes because in the end tax reform was a better deal for the nation as a whole.
Where is that kind of leadership from the Dear Leader, President Obama?
I know many will say with so-called health care "reform".
The problem is that the majority of the American people did not want the "reform" that was being sold to them. Unless you can bring a majority to that, then it looks like it was bad from the beginning.
What I see from the Dear Leader, President Obama, is an iron fist instead of the velvet glove.
And most important of any leader is to have the people believing in themselves.
Ronald Reagan did that.
Barack Obama does not do that.
And thus the difference between Ronald Reagan, a true leader, and Barack Obama, a faux leader, is crystal clear.
One can only hope that Mitt Romney is more Ronald Reagan than Barack Obama.
After reading it not once but twice, what struck me was that Ronald Reagan was truly a real leader. He really did not care so much about the nuts-and-bolts of minutia of the job of being president. But he understood so much about the issues of the day. And much more than he ever let on.
It stands in stark contrast to a faux leader, the Dear Leader, President Barack H. Obama. One never really vetted. One that we have never seen his college transcripts. I mean, after all, unlike Mr. Reagan, the Dear Leader, President Obama, went to Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard law school. And he "wrote" a book before he actually became anything.
Yet as Mr. Barnes points out in the article, Mr. Reagan was portrayed in this manner:
These anecdotes (referring to a story about a movie) may not appear to be terribly significant. But they’re more revealing than I thought at the time, for they undermine the profile of Reagan created by the media, the permanent Washington establishment, political insiders, many Democrats, some Republicans, and even a few members of Reagan’s White House staff. Their idea of Reagan—a bumbling, likable lightweight blessed with good luck and clever aides—wasn’t the Reagan that I encountered. It wasn’t the real Reagan.
Mr. Reagan we have come to find out was really a kind of smart guy after all. Not bad a dude that went to a Christian college, Eureka College in the middle-of-nowhere Illinois.
For instance, Mr. Reagan wrote himself every radio commentary that he delivered while a syndicated commentator in the late 1970s between presidential campaigns. That is something many, including your humble blogger, had no idea. But the book Reagan In His Own Hand shows an engaged person that wrote all the commentaries long form and wrote is the operative word. And courtesy of Mr. Barnes, here are some of the topics he dealt with during that time: Namibia, ocean mining, Cambodia, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, treaties, the B-1 bomber, missile defense, national security strategy, intelligence, Chile, visas, Vladimir Bukovsky, human rights, the Helsinki Accords, Cuba, Rhodesia, the Panama Canal, Guantánamo, Leonid Brezhnev, foreign aid, Palestine, Jamaica, and the United Nations.
But remember folks, Mr. Reagan was but an amiable dunce. He just got lucky.
Where was all of that from the Dear Leader, President Obama? How do we know anything about him? What he really has thought on the major issues of the day? I mean, yeah it is great that he "wrote" not one but two self-serving books before he did anything. But again, why was he not thoroughly vetted the way someone like Mr. Reagan was?
And why is it, even to this day, that Mr. Reagan seemed to be the only one interested in defeating Soviet communism?
As governor of California in 1972, Mr Reagan said that Soviet communism would soon be confined to “dustbin of history.” And he said the same thing 10 years later as president. And the establishment thought to a man and woman that Mr. Reagan was dreaming. If not a little daft. Too bad that by 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. That East and West Germany would be one with the West winning out.
Where is that kind of leadership from the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Understand that the Dear Leader, President Obama, ran as something that he clearly was not.
A mushy moderate.
Since becoming the president, Mr. Obama has driven home the fact that he is the most left-wing president since Lyndon, nope, Lynchin' Baines Johnson. And for sure even more to the left than Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
On issue after issue, Mr. Obama is almost at odd with the very people that elected him in the first place.
A leader has to sometimes make adjustments, even if he or she does not want to.
So yes, Mr. Reagan did raise taxes while president. But in the end, he enacted the largest tax reform to date. So many of us conservatives can forgive the tax hikes because in the end tax reform was a better deal for the nation as a whole.
Where is that kind of leadership from the Dear Leader, President Obama?
I know many will say with so-called health care "reform".
The problem is that the majority of the American people did not want the "reform" that was being sold to them. Unless you can bring a majority to that, then it looks like it was bad from the beginning.
What I see from the Dear Leader, President Obama, is an iron fist instead of the velvet glove.
And most important of any leader is to have the people believing in themselves.
Ronald Reagan did that.
Barack Obama does not do that.
And thus the difference between Ronald Reagan, a true leader, and Barack Obama, a faux leader, is crystal clear.
One can only hope that Mitt Romney is more Ronald Reagan than Barack Obama.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!
Here is to all the dad's, stepdads, grandads (no, not the bourbon whiskey!) and all the male role model's out there. Today is our day. So, Happy Father's Day.
I often complain to Mrs. RVFTLC that dads, well we kind of get the shaft when it comes to the days set aside for moms and dads.
Part of it, historically, is the way that a dad's role had been in our society.
Dad has always been the one to work. Sometimes more than one job. Sometimes endless hours at the one that he had. The time that a dad would spend with their children, boys or girls, was often limited in comparison to the mom.
Even now that does still hold true, but thankfully less so.
One of the few good things to come out of our modern disaster known as culture is that dad's are becoming more a part of their children's life.
No, dad does not have to come home from work, hear the often bad report from mom and lay down the law. Well, some do. But sometimes the dad is the one that does the reporting for mom. Or because we now have stay-at-home dads, or dads that work from home, they get to do it all.
As my pastor pointed out in part of today's sermon at church, only about four out of 100 children have had a closer relationship with their dad over their mom.
That is very sad.
One hopes that even with the tragedy that is divorce, that is changing.
I have a friend that I often quote from that is a divorced man. He gets his son on a schedule as is wont of divorcees. But it does seem that he has a very good relationship with his son. He has taken him to many a concert. Gets him all involving his love of rock music.
I often complain to Mrs. RVFTLC that dads, well we kind of get the shaft when it comes to the days set aside for moms and dads.
Part of it, historically, is the way that a dad's role had been in our society.
Dad has always been the one to work. Sometimes more than one job. Sometimes endless hours at the one that he had. The time that a dad would spend with their children, boys or girls, was often limited in comparison to the mom.
Even now that does still hold true, but thankfully less so.
One of the few good things to come out of our modern disaster known as culture is that dad's are becoming more a part of their children's life.
No, dad does not have to come home from work, hear the often bad report from mom and lay down the law. Well, some do. But sometimes the dad is the one that does the reporting for mom. Or because we now have stay-at-home dads, or dads that work from home, they get to do it all.
As my pastor pointed out in part of today's sermon at church, only about four out of 100 children have had a closer relationship with their dad over their mom.
That is very sad.
One hopes that even with the tragedy that is divorce, that is changing.
I have a friend that I often quote from that is a divorced man. He gets his son on a schedule as is wont of divorcees. But it does seem that he has a very good relationship with his son. He has taken him to many a concert. Gets him all involving his love of rock music.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The Dear Leader Resorts To Faux Amnesty For Young Illegal Aliens
Well, nothing like another election-year ploy from the Dear Leader, President Obama, to raise the hackles of your humble, yet blog-funked, blogger.
Yesterday, the Dear Leader, President Obama, by executive order, has circumvented congress and will no longer enforce the law regarding the children of illegal aliens.
What this means is that up to 800,000 children of illegal aliens between 16-30 years-old will be eligible for work permits. One of the conditions include not having a criminal record.
To all of this I say really? You, our Dear Leader, President Obama, want to begin, by executive order, an amnesty process around congress. The same congress that your party, the Democrat party, controlled for two years of your presidency.
There is so much about this faux amnesty that is has to be broken down, which I will do.
1) Totally disingenuous
Again, as noted above, when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House, they could have passed legislation such as this. But they did not. Once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained senate seats, legislation such as this was not gonna happen. But to think that this is not aimed at gaining more support from one particular group of voters, Hispanics, then please get your head examined. In an accompanying article at the Left Angeles Times, here is the accompanied photo and caption direct from the Times website:
Nancy Guarneros, 25, right, hugs Jorge Gutierrez, 28, as they join more than 150 students and Dream Act supporters who rallied in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to voice support for President Obama's decision to halt the deportation of young illegal immigrants who have no criminal records and meet certain other criteria. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / June 15, 2012)
Now note that there are not a slew of Danish illegal aliens. Nor Indians. Nor Red Chinese. Nor Australians. Nor people from the Arabian peninsula. No, this is a sop to Hispanics. But especially those of Mexican ancestry. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of the 800,000 plus possible for this scam, er program will be Mexican. It is nothing more than to assume that all Mexican Americans will be supportive of this. Which leads to number two.
2) Er, Not All Mexicans Think Alike
One of the great lies is that Mexican Americans are totally monolithic when it comes on how to deal with illegal immigration.
But there is a serious divide between multi-generational Mexicans that have been in the United States vs. the illegal vs those that have played by the rules to immigrate here.
The most upset group are those that did it right.
Yes, it is a bureaucratic nightmare, but they played by the rules and did everything right. They did not come here illegally. Nor did they bring their children here illegally. They have to wonder why bother? Why not just wait for a desperate president like the Dear Leader, President Obama, and they can just be rewarded. Especially where their children are concerned.
Then there are the multi-generationals.
They look at such things as the "DREAM" act as more of the nightmare act. They see such things as possibly affecting their children when it comes to attending college. And now in the fight for jobs in this wretched economy.
In California, the above two groups without a doubt voted for the controversial measure Prop. 187 in 1996 and I believe would do so again. Do not believe that it was only the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Republicans that voted for the measure. A vote does not get 59% without the vote of some Hispanics.
But that does not mean they are the majority just yet.
There are enough Hispanic voters that do not get what I noted and look at what was done yesterday through the prism of race and not national interest.
3) Economic Impact
OK, so if these 800,000 plus young people become part of the work force at this point, where are the jobs for them?
Since unemployment has been at eight percent plus throughout the whole Dear Leader, President Obama administration, will these new workers get jobs over American citizens? What if they can not find employment? Are they not then in even more of a limbo than not?
Well, it will take a while for the process to work itself out. The economy may improve somewhat by the time we see the first beneficiaries of the program in the work force. But the fact that it is even being announced now in the midst of a disastrous economy shows a tone-deafness of this administration beyond belief. It makes it look like the president cares more about the fate of illegal aliens children over that of actual Americans.
4) Political Impact
That is a good question. Will it hurt or help the Dear Leader, President Obama in the long run? Well, his sudden "evolution" on same-sex marriage sure did not help. When one balances this all out on the next couple of weeks, it may prove to be a wash. Not much of a gain if any among the general electorate. It is the pure opportunism of these latest pronouncements that will roil the electorate. There are just not enough gay activist types and or illegal alien advocate type to offset the rest of the regular people. If this does not motivate the right to oppose this administration by voting them out in November, nothing will. In the end, I do not think that this will help the Obama campaign.
5) Totally Ignores Congress
This is an interesting fact.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, totally did an end-run on congress. By doing so, he risks a potential Romney administration simply shutting down the program. By not going through congress with a compromise measure such as what this could have been does not make it an actual law. It shows the misguided approach that a president can just sign an executive order and voila! No future administration would dare to go the other way, would they? Why risk it? And why totally flaunt a potential abuse of the Executive Order? Does anyone think in the current administration that no one will bring a lawsuit? And the possibility that the supreme court could rule this one unconstitutional?
Again, one must look at number four. All about the politics.
And that is what is wrong with this.
It is all about pandering and politics.
When the Democrats controlled the executive and legislative branch, they could have passed something like this. And maybe even so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. But they did not. Deep in the craniums of most Democrats, they had to know that this is a toxic issue. And surprise! It still is.
I expect more and more of this "evolution", er pandering, to continue right up to election day.
Yesterday, the Dear Leader, President Obama, by executive order, has circumvented congress and will no longer enforce the law regarding the children of illegal aliens.
What this means is that up to 800,000 children of illegal aliens between 16-30 years-old will be eligible for work permits. One of the conditions include not having a criminal record.
To all of this I say really? You, our Dear Leader, President Obama, want to begin, by executive order, an amnesty process around congress. The same congress that your party, the Democrat party, controlled for two years of your presidency.
There is so much about this faux amnesty that is has to be broken down, which I will do.
1) Totally disingenuous
Again, as noted above, when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the White House, they could have passed legislation such as this. But they did not. Once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained senate seats, legislation such as this was not gonna happen. But to think that this is not aimed at gaining more support from one particular group of voters, Hispanics, then please get your head examined. In an accompanying article at the Left Angeles Times, here is the accompanied photo and caption direct from the Times website:
Nancy Guarneros, 25, right, hugs Jorge Gutierrez, 28, as they join more than 150 students and Dream Act supporters who rallied in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to voice support for President Obama's decision to halt the deportation of young illegal immigrants who have no criminal records and meet certain other criteria. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / June 15, 2012)
Now note that there are not a slew of Danish illegal aliens. Nor Indians. Nor Red Chinese. Nor Australians. Nor people from the Arabian peninsula. No, this is a sop to Hispanics. But especially those of Mexican ancestry. Overwhelmingly the vast majority of the 800,000 plus possible for this scam, er program will be Mexican. It is nothing more than to assume that all Mexican Americans will be supportive of this. Which leads to number two.
2) Er, Not All Mexicans Think Alike
One of the great lies is that Mexican Americans are totally monolithic when it comes on how to deal with illegal immigration.
But there is a serious divide between multi-generational Mexicans that have been in the United States vs. the illegal vs those that have played by the rules to immigrate here.
The most upset group are those that did it right.
Yes, it is a bureaucratic nightmare, but they played by the rules and did everything right. They did not come here illegally. Nor did they bring their children here illegally. They have to wonder why bother? Why not just wait for a desperate president like the Dear Leader, President Obama, and they can just be rewarded. Especially where their children are concerned.
Then there are the multi-generationals.
They look at such things as the "DREAM" act as more of the nightmare act. They see such things as possibly affecting their children when it comes to attending college. And now in the fight for jobs in this wretched economy.
In California, the above two groups without a doubt voted for the controversial measure Prop. 187 in 1996 and I believe would do so again. Do not believe that it was only the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll White Republicans that voted for the measure. A vote does not get 59% without the vote of some Hispanics.
But that does not mean they are the majority just yet.
There are enough Hispanic voters that do not get what I noted and look at what was done yesterday through the prism of race and not national interest.
3) Economic Impact
OK, so if these 800,000 plus young people become part of the work force at this point, where are the jobs for them?
Since unemployment has been at eight percent plus throughout the whole Dear Leader, President Obama administration, will these new workers get jobs over American citizens? What if they can not find employment? Are they not then in even more of a limbo than not?
Well, it will take a while for the process to work itself out. The economy may improve somewhat by the time we see the first beneficiaries of the program in the work force. But the fact that it is even being announced now in the midst of a disastrous economy shows a tone-deafness of this administration beyond belief. It makes it look like the president cares more about the fate of illegal aliens children over that of actual Americans.
4) Political Impact
That is a good question. Will it hurt or help the Dear Leader, President Obama in the long run? Well, his sudden "evolution" on same-sex marriage sure did not help. When one balances this all out on the next couple of weeks, it may prove to be a wash. Not much of a gain if any among the general electorate. It is the pure opportunism of these latest pronouncements that will roil the electorate. There are just not enough gay activist types and or illegal alien advocate type to offset the rest of the regular people. If this does not motivate the right to oppose this administration by voting them out in November, nothing will. In the end, I do not think that this will help the Obama campaign.
5) Totally Ignores Congress
This is an interesting fact.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, totally did an end-run on congress. By doing so, he risks a potential Romney administration simply shutting down the program. By not going through congress with a compromise measure such as what this could have been does not make it an actual law. It shows the misguided approach that a president can just sign an executive order and voila! No future administration would dare to go the other way, would they? Why risk it? And why totally flaunt a potential abuse of the Executive Order? Does anyone think in the current administration that no one will bring a lawsuit? And the possibility that the supreme court could rule this one unconstitutional?
Again, one must look at number four. All about the politics.
And that is what is wrong with this.
It is all about pandering and politics.
When the Democrats controlled the executive and legislative branch, they could have passed something like this. And maybe even so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. But they did not. Deep in the craniums of most Democrats, they had to know that this is a toxic issue. And surprise! It still is.
I expect more and more of this "evolution", er pandering, to continue right up to election day.
Monday, June 11, 2012
LOS ANGELES KINGS WIN 1ST STANLEY CUP!!!!!
As I noted in an earlier post, I have been a Kings fan for roughly 34 years. I was the first one in my family to watch hockey, got all my brothers interested and hooked and we have been fans ever since.
To me there is nothing like ice hockey. It is fast, hard hitting, and in so many ways indescribable.
Hockey changed in Los Angeles in 1989 when new owner Bruce McNall made a blockbuster trade that brought the greatest hockey player evah, Wayne Gretzky, to the Left Coast. Within five years, the Kings made their first trip to the Stanley Cup finals, but lost to the mighty Montreal Canadiens, four games to one.
And there were a lot of years that the Kings were in the wilderness.
But this year, some things happened in mid-season that changed the fate of the Kings.
A coaching change was made in December when Terry Murray was replaced by Daryl Sutter. He brought new life into the Kings. They went from a defense-minded team to being able to score goals and play the D. And what can you say about Jonathan Quick, the goalie that went 16-4 in the playoffs?
While the Kings barely made it as the eight and last seed in the Western Conference (formally the Clarance Campbell Conference), they defeated the best team in the Western Conference. The Vancouver Canucks fell four games to one. Then came the second best team in the conference, the St. Louis Blues. And it was a four-game sweep for the Kings. Then came the third best team in the conference, the Phoenix Coyotes. And another four game to one series. Only two games over the minimal possible number of games to play. And then came the sixth-seed in the Eastern Conference (formally the Prince of Wales Conference)), the New Jersey Devils.
Ahh, the Devils. They have been down this road before. They started life as the Kansas City Scouts, and well that did not work out too well. After a couple of seasons in K. C., well they became the original Colorado Rockies until 1982, when they moved to East Rutherford, New Jersey and became the Devils.
The Devils have three Stanley Cups under their belts. But this time, well they were not gonna get number four.
The Kings played amazing winning the first two games by identical scores of 2-1 in overtime both games. Then they came back here to Los Angeles and won again. It was the Kings up three games to none. But in game four, the Devils came back to life and won that game, forcing a trip back to New Jersey. And the Devs pulled off the win in game five and forced a game six back here in Los Angeles.
And tonight it was a magical night for us who have spent many a season disappointed. We are so happy that it is unfrickingbelievable to write the following.
Los Angeles Kings, 2011-2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Friday, June 08, 2012
Thursday, June 07, 2012
No More Blog Posts Until Saturday
In my medically and medicated conditions, I have not been keeping up with the Brett Kimberlin saga as I should.
But a great place to get enormous background and first hand the evil that is Kimberlin in here at The Other McCain.
This Kimberlin douchebrain is one piece of work. But regrettably, a smart one.
Why thanks to either Kimberlin or one of his goons, a new word has entered the vocabulary of the blogosphere.
SWATting.
Yep, SWATting. When someone has enough to call the police on you and say that some horrible crime has occurred at your residence. Unbeknownst to the victim, police will come banging at your front door and thus, it could be the local SWAT team.
If you think that is BS, ask Erick Erickson, Patrick Frey of Patterico Pontification's, Mike Stack.
All were given the Kimberlin treatment.
Oh, Brett, BTW, I am in Pasadena, California, not Texas, FWIW.
One other thing about this douchbrain is that he is the clown that claimed former Vice-President Dan Quayle bought dope from him while he was in law school. Of course that turned out to be one of the many lies this douchebrain gave to the leftywhore media, always looking for anything bad and or wrong about any conservative.
But if you go further in the Wikipedia link, this Kimberlin douchebrain became the worst kind of lawyer. A jailhouse lawyer. One who had a lot of time on his hands since he was serving time in a federal prison. Plenty of time to really read the law if you will.
This douchebrain is a lefty jail bird who probably should be there now. But, alas, he is not. He is stirring a lot of trouble.
And this leads to why I will be silent tomorrow, Friday, June 8, 2012.
Over at Ace of Spades, Ace calls for a Day of Silence from those of us in the conservative blogosphere, and those that believe in freedom of speech for all. A day in which the only blog I will post will be the open letter to congress that Ace is going to put up.
A lot of people got all worked up over the SOMA act and that is fine, but this is just as if not more important.
People can not try to shut people up because they do not like what they are writing about. If it is blatantly false, then corrections are always necessary. But if is not incorrect and the information is factual, then it needs to be out there. If one does not like it, refute it.
I admit, one of the reasons this is personal for me is one of the best people in the conservative blogosphere, Robert Stacy McCain is being railroaded. Another friend, political activist Ali Akbar, is now in the cross hairs of Kimberlin and his people.
Freedom of speech is for all, not just those we like. And reporting on very uncomfortable things is also protected. It is that pesky First Amendment to the United States constitution. You know, the one that protects freedom of the press.
That is all for now. Until Saturday. . .
But a great place to get enormous background and first hand the evil that is Kimberlin in here at The Other McCain.
This Kimberlin douchebrain is one piece of work. But regrettably, a smart one.
Why thanks to either Kimberlin or one of his goons, a new word has entered the vocabulary of the blogosphere.
SWATting.
Yep, SWATting. When someone has enough to call the police on you and say that some horrible crime has occurred at your residence. Unbeknownst to the victim, police will come banging at your front door and thus, it could be the local SWAT team.
If you think that is BS, ask Erick Erickson, Patrick Frey of Patterico Pontification's, Mike Stack.
All were given the Kimberlin treatment.
Oh, Brett, BTW, I am in Pasadena, California, not Texas, FWIW.
One other thing about this douchbrain is that he is the clown that claimed former Vice-President Dan Quayle bought dope from him while he was in law school. Of course that turned out to be one of the many lies this douchebrain gave to the leftywhore media, always looking for anything bad and or wrong about any conservative.
But if you go further in the Wikipedia link, this Kimberlin douchebrain became the worst kind of lawyer. A jailhouse lawyer. One who had a lot of time on his hands since he was serving time in a federal prison. Plenty of time to really read the law if you will.
This douchebrain is a lefty jail bird who probably should be there now. But, alas, he is not. He is stirring a lot of trouble.
And this leads to why I will be silent tomorrow, Friday, June 8, 2012.
Over at Ace of Spades, Ace calls for a Day of Silence from those of us in the conservative blogosphere, and those that believe in freedom of speech for all. A day in which the only blog I will post will be the open letter to congress that Ace is going to put up.
A lot of people got all worked up over the SOMA act and that is fine, but this is just as if not more important.
People can not try to shut people up because they do not like what they are writing about. If it is blatantly false, then corrections are always necessary. But if is not incorrect and the information is factual, then it needs to be out there. If one does not like it, refute it.
I admit, one of the reasons this is personal for me is one of the best people in the conservative blogosphere, Robert Stacy McCain is being railroaded. Another friend, political activist Ali Akbar, is now in the cross hairs of Kimberlin and his people.
Freedom of speech is for all, not just those we like. And reporting on very uncomfortable things is also protected. It is that pesky First Amendment to the United States constitution. You know, the one that protects freedom of the press.
That is all for now. Until Saturday. . .
California's New Primary System Sucks As The Old One-And Even Worse
Tuesday, out of a sickbed, your humble blogger literally took a walk across the street from the RVFTLC Bunker to do my civic duty and vote in the California presidential primary.
Well, there was absolutely no drama in that part of the vote.
Mitt Romney squeezed by the listed GOP candidates by a measly 60% over the second place finisher, Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. FTR, Mr. Romney had 80% of the Republican vote. Here is the link at the California Secretary of State website.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama, in true one-party fashion pulled off 100% of the vote as there was no other candidate on the ballot.
And how about the other races on the California ballot?
You know, for congress, senate, state assembly and state senate?
Well, it was interesting.
This is the first election in which new rules were instituted as part of the reform package regarding redistricting.
This time, no matter what party you belong to, there is one ballot for all the candidates. Thus, here is the page for all the United States senate candidates, regardless of party.
Well, there was absolutely no drama in that part of the vote.
Mitt Romney squeezed by the listed GOP candidates by a measly 60% over the second place finisher, Crazy Uncle Ron Paul. FTR, Mr. Romney had 80% of the Republican vote. Here is the link at the California Secretary of State website.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama, in true one-party fashion pulled off 100% of the vote as there was no other candidate on the ballot.
And how about the other races on the California ballot?
You know, for congress, senate, state assembly and state senate?
Well, it was interesting.
This is the first election in which new rules were instituted as part of the reform package regarding redistricting.
This time, no matter what party you belong to, there is one ballot for all the candidates. Thus, here is the page for all the United States senate candidates, regardless of party.
So, although not a great photo, all 24 candidates were on one page. The incumbent senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, is sixth from the top. And the Republican that one (and I voted for), Elizabeth Emken, was just below her eighth from the top.
Oh, here is how all that works.
Out of the 24 candidates, the top two vote getter's move on to the general election in November.
Out of the 24 candidates, the top two vote getter's move on to the general election in November.
Now, if you go to this link at the California SOS website, you can look and see that Sen. Feinstein was the overall top vote-getter. And in second place was Mrs. Emken. So, in this case, it will be a classic Democrat vs. Republican. And if you look and shriek that Mrs. Emken only got 12.5% of the overall vote, consider that there were 14 Republicans out of the 24 candidates. and the overall percentage of the vote was 37%. Which is about seven percent more than are registered Republican in California.
Keep this in mind. That it is the two top vote getter's, regardless of political party that move on the the general election.
So, humble blogger, does that mean that it is conceivable that two Democrats can run against each other? Or two Republicans?
So, humble blogger, does that mean that it is conceivable that two Democrats can run against each other? Or two Republicans?
Why yes dear reader. And in fact, in two So Cal congressional districts, that is indeed what has happened.
In the California district 30, two very influential Democrats that were in different districts were merged together. And of course the two big egos have to duke it out to see who would carry the Democrat banner in November.
Howard Berman, who has been in congress since 1983 and Brad Sherman, in congress since 1997 were, until this election, in separate congressional districts. Both are liberal Democrats and Jewish and represent their districts as to be expected. If there is any real difference between the two, it is a matter of style. But this time around, they had to make a choice. One of them could have ran and one outright. It is a very safe Democrat seat. But, as noted that did not happen. Both ran and as these results show, Congressman Sherman finished first and Congressman Berman finished second. Both Democrats.
Say, what about the Republican candidate, Mark Reed?
Say, what about the Republican candidate, Mark Reed?
Remember, it is the top two regardless of political party that get to the general election.
Do you realize what happened here?
Republicans are totally disenfranchised because their candidate did not finish in the top two. It is not that the party chose not to run a candidate. They did and still do not get to the next round.
Republicans are totally disenfranchised because their candidate did not finish in the top two. It is not that the party chose not to run a candidate. They did and still do not get to the next round.
OK, you may say well, humble blogger, you're a Republican and it is just sour grapes.
Sort of true I guess. But no, I do believe that certain voters are disenfranchised because of the process, not the political party.
So, here is example number two to read about.
In California congressional district 31, a Republican incumbent wanted to run for another term. But, the state Republican leader in the senate also wanted to run. And like district 30, this is a very Republican district.
The players on this stage are incumbent Congressman Gary Miller, who has been in congress since 2001 and state Senator Bob Dutton who has been involved in state politics since 2003.
Like ego-driven politicos that they are, both men decided to run for the same seat, knowing that one could lose outright.
But, surprise, surprise.
Both made it to the next round as you can see here. Congressman Miller got the first spot and state Senator Dutton got the second.
Guess who's missing?
If you said the Democrat, you are correct.
Poor Pete Aguilar got screwed. Just like Mark Reed for the Republicans in district 30.
OK, this new arrangement was supposed to create more competitive districts. We are supposed to see this boat load of "centrists" from both parties emerge out of the woodwork.
Really, is that what happened here?
No. In fact, it is more protecting the two major parties and insuring that incumbents will not have to face serious challenges in the future.
No. In fact, it is more protecting the two major parties and insuring that incumbents will not have to face serious challenges in the future.
Explain to me how in the 30th congressional district with two liberal Democrats running in the general election are Republicans going to care who wins? What is the incentive for either candidate to actually attract. . .Republicans? There is none. This is a Democrat district and a Democrat will win. One of these men will get some cushy job, just won't be a member of congress.
And take the above paragraph and just change it to conservative Republicans and Democrats not caring who wins.
This is not a good reform.
A better reform would be to no longer register voters by political party. It is done that way in over 30 states. Thus everyone is independent. It is up to the party to make the rules how people participate in the choosing of their candidates for elected office.
I do not like any of it, but this is not a good reform. It will not bring the "center" together.
I hope that there is a change in this for the next presidential election in 2016.
The Flu Turns Out To Be Strep Throat
Well, what I thought was a really bad case of the flu, I wished, has turned out to be strep throat. And boy it really sucks to have it when your pushing 50.
If you read the link to WebMD, I had every symptom that is listed. The doctor did in fact take a throat culture. Here are the symptoms to look for:
A sudden, severe sore throat.
Pain when you swallow.
Fever over 101°F (38.3°C).
Swollen tonsils and lymph nodes.
White or yellow spots on the back of a bright red throat.
Well, the only difference is that I no longer have tonsils, yet my lymph nodes were indeed very swollen. Even today I still have pain swallowing and a lot of congestion.
It is my public service announcement that if you have any of the above symptoms, get to your doctor yesterday.
Thankfully, Mrs. RVFTLC is a persistent one.
I felt sick Wednesday, it hit like a ton of bricks Thursday and she insisted that I go to the doctor on Friday. Which I did. See, I really was sick. I would normally argue. But I knew whatever it was I had to go.
And yes, it takes a long time to even marginally recover as I am now.
And I hope to at least get a post in on how voting was here in California this past Tuesday.
Again, if you are feeling ill and have any of the above symptoms, get to the doc right away.
If you read the link to WebMD, I had every symptom that is listed. The doctor did in fact take a throat culture. Here are the symptoms to look for:
Well, the only difference is that I no longer have tonsils, yet my lymph nodes were indeed very swollen. Even today I still have pain swallowing and a lot of congestion.
It is my public service announcement that if you have any of the above symptoms, get to your doctor yesterday.
Thankfully, Mrs. RVFTLC is a persistent one.
I felt sick Wednesday, it hit like a ton of bricks Thursday and she insisted that I go to the doctor on Friday. Which I did. See, I really was sick. I would normally argue. But I knew whatever it was I had to go.
And yes, it takes a long time to even marginally recover as I am now.
And I hope to at least get a post in on how voting was here in California this past Tuesday.
Again, if you are feeling ill and have any of the above symptoms, get to the doc right away.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
A Very Bad Flu Strikes Your Humble Blogger
UGH!
Since Wednesday evening, I have had quite possibly the flu from hell. And I only figured it out yesterday after a visit to the doctor.
Started with a horrible sore throat that devolved into the full body ache, inability to eat, just an overall feeling of BLAH!
Now on two strong anti-biotics, heavy duty cough syrup and pain killer, I hope that I am turning the corner.
But honestly, I still feel like crap.
A lesson learned here.
I am too old to get this flu business. When available I will get the flu shot. A cold, no problem. A bad cold, no problem. This, oh this is like the worst I can remember having in a long time.
Hope to be back blogging next week.
Since Wednesday evening, I have had quite possibly the flu from hell. And I only figured it out yesterday after a visit to the doctor.
Started with a horrible sore throat that devolved into the full body ache, inability to eat, just an overall feeling of BLAH!
Now on two strong anti-biotics, heavy duty cough syrup and pain killer, I hope that I am turning the corner.
But honestly, I still feel like crap.
A lesson learned here.
I am too old to get this flu business. When available I will get the flu shot. A cold, no problem. A bad cold, no problem. This, oh this is like the worst I can remember having in a long time.
Hope to be back blogging next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)