Monday, July 30, 2012

Here's "Fairness" Again!

These people just do not give up!  No matter how often their claims, theories, suppositions and declarations are proven to be nothing more than lies, they will not give up their claims. 

OK, fine . . . we do have this little thingie in our country called "Freedom of Speech," right?  So that means that they -- along with everyone else, supposedly, have the freedom to express their opinions, whether pro or con, on any issue, right?

Well . . . wrong.

Not when we live in what may soon be the Socialist States of America.  Apparently, according to the Liberal Left, the only voices that have that constitutionally protected right - Freedom of Speech - is . . . guess who?  The Left, of course, and only the left.

No other voices have the same rights . . . because, of course (!) only they are "right," "know better," and "mean well."  No one else.  So, based on this oh-so-sincere, honest, and "fair" premise, no one else has the right to the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Speech.

They tried to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" earlier in this administration, but, due to the immediate outcry, could not.  Not the types to give up, though, they're bringing it up again.  (After all, they've been trying to impose their "utopia" for over 50 years!)

True, they claim the targets of the "doctrine" are "only" the media: TV, radio, print.  If anyone believes that, I've got a really cool bridge to sell.  (Call me!)

Anyone gullible enough (like most liberals) who believes that this "fairness" doctrine is anywhere near the definition of the word "fair" is even more gullible than the folks who shut their brains down in 2008 and voted for this administration in the first place.

As we have heard in recent months, this administration's definition of the word always seems to involve taking [stealing, to be more accurate] something from one person or group to "give" to another person or group . . . as in Mr. Obama's exhortation to Joe Wurzelbacher.

We are supposed to accept that this type of mentality really is "fair" in any universe, not just in the topsy-turvy, upside-down, inside-out, black is white, and white is black "Brave New World" in which we now find ourselves.

The attempt to reinstate this so-called  "doctrine" is just a follow up, I believe, to the horrendous, revolting and disgusting recent attempts by Leftists to intimidate and silence practicing Christians under the sordid reasoning that comments made by the CEO of a private enterprise, Chick-fil-A, about his own personal, individual beliefs -- in response to an interview question from a biblically-based interviewer, are supposedly "hate-speech."

Such atrociousness should not even be acknowledged, much less discussed in any manner at all -- must be given short shrift --  when we have the rabid reactions of the liberal left insisting now that one's personal religion, and one's expression thereof, is now "hate."

I can't believe anything can be more revolting or disgusting than the combination of those excellent examples of "American standards," Chicagoans Rahm Emanuel  and Thomas Menino; let's not forget Boston's mayor and the several others who climbed out of the woodwork to spew their venom and threats

In response to Emanuel, I say, "Thank the Good Lord that Chicago standards are not my standards!"

And, with this as the background, we are to accept that the "Fairness Doctrine" is a sincere attempt to be "fair" to "all" points of view in the media industry?

Uh-huh.  Right.  Sure.

Records Speak for Themselves

The liberals & democrats want 12 years of Mr. Romney's taxes??

How about we just get 1 year's response to any of the following items??

'Nuff said, I think.

Friday, July 27, 2012

OK, Don't Want to Play? Just Shut Down Your Business

In recent days we've had the ongoing argument of whether a speech played practically in its entirety is "in context." 

With the well-known liberal habit of parsing, splitting frog's hairs, and debating the meaning of the word "is," we are now debating whether Mr. Obama actually said what he said and in what supposed context he said it -- or didn't say it.

I was sitting right here in front of the tube and watched the the whole darned speech, and as in many cases with liberals, I am going to choose to believe what my lyin' eyes and ears saw and heard -- not what liberals tell me I saw and heard.

We've also heard a lot about the so-called "health-care bill," and a slew of stuff about what it is, what it is not, what it will do, and what it will not do.

Based on my experience with my own lyin' eyes and ears these past 3+ years, I tend to believe there is no way that "health-care" bill has anything to do with "health care" other than just taking over the system and achieving the long-held liberal goal of  "universal health care."  Taken at Obama's word, the so-called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" has nothing to do with bringing down the cost to make anything "affordable," but, as any thinking person has known since 2009, everything to do with pulling every citizen ever more completely under the total control of the government in every aspect of their lives.

There has been constant denial by the government -- of course -- that its goal is any such thing.  (Here again, who ya gonna believe?)

We've also been told that the health care bill will be a boon to mankind, ensuring that every citizen will have "coverage," and that no one will have to take the chance of having a leg cut off just because the surgeon wants to get more money from the insurance company; that no one will lose their doctor if one likes their doctor (strange how my 84 year old Mom has already lost 3 doctors since 2009; they pulled out of Medicare); that the overall cost of health care will go down; and an unending, nauseating list of blatant lies.

The most glaring lie was made public recently by Kathleen Sibelius' recent dictate that all insurance policies must conform to government requirements, including giving abortion and birth control "services" in all employer-provided policies, regardless of personal, religious beliefs of the employer.

These are just the highlights, of course. 

But, let's summarize so far: the "health care" bill forces us to accept a government-approved level of "insurance," which will ultimately be provided by the government only;  we will not be able to keep our own doctor (not if they leave their careers, as a great number have said they will); and the millions more who are placed into the non-existent "exchanges," are somehow going to lessen the cost and burden on the industry as a whole . . .

All of this is just wonderful and totally hunky-dory, fine-n-dandy, right?  Right.  So far, so good.

Now, let's add yet another level of government control.  We are today witness to the complete removal of the mask from the face of our current "government."  Their intent has been made completely clear in their ultimate desire to dictate to us, the American people the what, how, when, where, and why of every aspect of our lives.

With the power created by and placed into the hands of the government specifically by this "Act," Kathleen Sibelius not only feels she can order citizens to breach their own religious beliefs by forcing them to pay for services that are anathema to their personal beliefs, she feels she can now tell a private corporation to either follow their dictates or to shut down.

This is beyond the head-shaking disbelief we've been experiencing these past 3 years.  This is the kind of government control, government dictatorship, and takeover of every individual that is -- or at least should be --  completely unacceptable in our world.

This idea would have been unthinkable a few years ago . . . maybe only 6 years ago.  In today's upside down world, however, it is hardly surprising that the government would say one thing while consciously knowing what they said is a lie.

The current administration is not only forcing all Americans to get their insurance coverage from one source (the government), student loans from one source (the government), home loans from one source (the government), but now we are going to be told by the government whether we can stay in business or not.

On what possible basis, constitutional or not (Justice Roberts notwithstanding), can this dictatorial régime feel it could once again try to force its demands on law-abiding, self-sufficient American citizens?

In what other country but a socialist one, can a government threaten, brow-beat, beat down a private company to force that company to either "accept" government orders or shut down

America: Wake Up!  Our Republic has almost completely disappeared. 
We are, for all intents and purposes, now living under a dictatorship.  For those who do not understand the actual meaning of the word -- without parsing hairs -- it means living under a government whose sole purpose is to control, dictate, impose its will upon, and force the populace to do exactly as that government wants -- regardless of the individual's desires.

In this type of government, the individual has no meaning.  The individual is nothing.  All that matters is the collective and the collective is composed only of those chosen by the régime.   Anyone with an "older" education should have recognized this government as 1984 come to life and been frightened since the start.

Religious beliefs do not matter, personal or individual preferences and desires do not matter.  This dictatorship is classic: nothing matters but "The Collective," and "The Government" when decisions and determinations are to be made for the worker by the government and we are not to question.

Well, guess what -- We the People say, nope, don't think so, no way.  We will NOT sit down and shut up and we will dare to fight back and we will not stop.

November 6, 2012 can't get here a minute too soon.  The life of our Republic depends on it.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Stop the "Fundamental Transformation"

I do not know who wrote the piece following my thoughts, but I would very much like to shake his hand with respect; his name is intact at the end. He has hit right onto some of the most important myriad reasons that we are now on the brink of losing our Country.

It is for these reasons, and many more, that we must do everything we possibly can to change everything that is controlling this country from the top down. Yes, it is imperative we also look at those in charge at the local and state levels . . . this "transformation" must be stopped at every level this year -- or we can say goodbye to the Republic of the United States of America.

I understand folks are probably tired of these political things: between the TV commercials, the news programs, the robocalls, the talk shows, etc., it can certainly can get tedious and annoying. But this is much too important to get tired of: our current, as well as future, Country is gravely at stake.

I begged folks to pay attention, not to be taken in by the flash and dance, in 2008; I've done it almost non-stop since then. Four years later, I beg everyone even more strongly. Look around -- is this really the America you want?

I can tell you, this is not the America to which I pledged my allegiance with all my heart when I became a naturalized American in 2004 (after living here since 1964, by the way). The country I originally came from was very much like what our Country is now turning into.

I guess that's why I recognized the problem [danger] so easily.  That is why my family, and so many other thousands -- from other countries as well -- left our countries to come to the U.S.A.: for personal and individual freedom, for the opportunity (not the guarantee) to succeed at whatever level we individually decided success was right for us, for the right to speak, think, act, and live as we all wished -- as long we denied no others the same rights. (Simple fact is, there was quite enough of that going on in the countries we left behind.)

Those, to my family, and millions of other immigrants, were some of the reasons we came here.

Now, I unfortunately have to wonder, is there going to be a reason to stay here anymore? We came to live in the Republic of the United States of America; we fear we no longer live there.

From the depths of my own frustration level, I have to ask: Don't folks realize that if we lose the Republic, there are almost no other places to which one can go to have the same freedoms so many have apparently taken for granted for so long, and are in clear danger of losing?

We must fight to keep our Republic: November 6, 2012 is our last chance -- there is
no doubt about it.


Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans

The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "
transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potentially dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.

The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of Obama Care there are more than 2,500 references to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take, at their sole discretion, some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once Obama Care is fully operational in 2014.

The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the
Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking, and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.

Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others.
None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.

It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.

Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.

The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.

The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would
deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.

Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history (see the "Fast and Furious" saga). In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
(As he happened to whisper to Medvedev.)

Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people, more than ever before.

Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.

The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.

What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the laws when the chief executive ignores them.

Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party, Independents, and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships.

Steve McCann, May 12, 2012