I Didn't Even Read This Article

I think I sent out this text in November of last year, only more blunt. We are so screwed.

At This Point the IPCC Couldn't Try to be More of an Embarassment

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Lying Like Crazy About Climate Change, which has been exposed in the past months as a fraud of epic proportions, has apparently one upped itself in an effort to ensure that no organization can ever touch the idiocy perpetuated by its "scientists". They took a claim on melting glacier ice from a student paper about mountain climbing based on anecdotal evidence and another paper written by a master's degree student based on guides. Seriously? We have to stand up as a nation and defund the United Nations. The joke is over.

And Now I Come Forth to Disappoint You With.....MY PLAN, Part I

I'm going to disappoint here because I'm starting off easy by setting out my ideas for immigration reform. I'm going to try and follow a pattern here to lay things out in stages so that the basis for my ideas is clear before I get to the idea.

1) Immigration is one of the best thing the United States of America has going for it. People flock to this country for a number of reasons, but mostly for the opportunity to make something better of their lives and for the freedoms afforded to our citizens. These are the people who renew the spirit of America, informing our spirit about who we are when we take for granted the great opportunities available to us.

2) We are meant to be a country of laws. The law treats all people equally. You can argue that only the rich have access or that they have all the advantages, but that is the result of people. The law does not, and never did, recognize differences based upon race, class, religion. Murder is murder, theft is theft, personal injury is personal injury. And immigration should be immigration. One class of people should not be disadvantaged by having to undergo the processes set in place for immigration to integrate to society while others do not.

3) Immigration should not be an overly burdensome process nor should it be prohibitively expensive. Remember, we are talking about immigration, not naturalization (becoming a citizen). Immigration should be streamlined so that we can adequately account for (and tax) those persons wishing to live and work in the United States, whether on a permanent or periodic basis. This serves not only to provide for those who wish to come, but it would reduce the expense of allowing them in and, hopefully, policing the illegal immigrants as they would become fewer due to the ease of entering.

4) Immigration being the law, those who abet its breaking should be prosecuted. There are sanctuary cities in the United States which refuse to enforce immigration laws by handing illegals over to ICE. One of the most famous of these is San Francisco which flaunts its refusal to enforce the law with its city council openly defying the law. Federal prosecution should be initiated against those who would aid and abet illegal immigrants.

5) In sum, simplify immigration so that more legal immigrants are accepted and accounted for, enforce laws against illegal immigration consistently, including the prosecution of those who aid and abet illegal immigration.

So there's Part I. Feel free to comment.

More Unreasoning Hatred of the Left

FOX News was accused in a Salon.com article of leading the charge in 1994 against the Clinton administration and trying to install a Republican Congress by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Salon.com was forced to issue a correction when it was revealed that FOX News didn't exist in 1994. (This story was reported on Special Report with Brett Baier.)

Nurse, What's the Patient's Condition? Well, Doctor, His Heart at Least Appears to be in the Right Place, But His Head is Firmly Wedged Up His Ass.

I'm going to give the President more credit than he deserves and assume for purposes of this post that his heart is in the right place and his intentions are what he states them to be. Having said that, offering a $5,000.00 tax credit for increased payroll (new hires or new raises) is idiocy and someone's attempt at a public relations game because they assume all of us aren't paying attention. An employer pays one half of the employee's Medicare and Social Security taxes, or about 7.65% of the gross pay received by the employee. The proposed tax credit would only offset the cost of this payroll tax. The rest of the employee's wages are a burden on the business. The incentive therefore to hire an extra employee is minimal. Let's assume your small business hires a full time employee at the minimum wage, thus the minimum cost to the business. At 40 hours per week and $7.25 per hour, that employee (assuming he maximizes his work with no vacation, holidays or sick days, will earn a gross pay for the year of $15,080.00, of which the employer will shoulder $1,153.62. The employee, under normal circumstances, would cost the employer $16,233.62 (not including costs of training programs or other costs such as uniforms, additional insurance expenses, etc.). President Obama's proposal would allow the business at the end of the year, to essential recoup $1,153.62 of the taxes it had given as an interest free loan to the government. Meanwhile, that employee still costs $15,080.00 to the employer who has to have realized an increase in productivity and profit which would justify the hiring. Not only that, from what I've heard so far, the employee would have to work the full year to realize the tax credit. Thus, if he or she is incompetent and is fired or quits for whatever reason, the employer does not realize the credit. There is thus a great deal of uncertainty attached to the hiring and the receipt of a credit that is set off at the end of the year rather than something that can be immediately budgeted as a matter of certainty. To receive the maximum credit of $5,000.00 you have to pay the employee over $60,000.00, so it only gets more expensive as you attempt to get more of a credit.

Now ask yourself, does this make you think you'd hire someone or consider giving a raise if this is your only incentive?

Stunning News! Only Big Three Car Company Not Run by Unions and Federal Government Makes Profit

Ford Motor Company, you know, the one not run by President Obama (I have to remind myslef to put President in front of his name. While he may not deserve the respect, the office does.) and his union flunkies, has announced its first profit in four years, $2.7 billion for 2009, and is forecasting a profitable 2010.

Creating Disunion

Just to retouch on one of the more astounding moments from last night's State of the Union address. President Obama, with the nine justices of the Supreme Court sitting front and center, as they traditionally do, challenged their recent ruling on campaign finance reform. Such a challenge is disrespectful and distasteful at best and shows the lack of deference that would have come from experience had President Obama spent any time governing rather than campaigning his whole life. It even appeared that Justice Samuel Allito said "that's just not true" in reacting to the President's characterization of the ruling. Specifically, the President (a rumored attorney and lecturer on constitutional law, though I've seen no indication he has much of a clue in the field) accused the Court of opening the floodgates of foreign contributions to campaigns, you know, like the illegal Chinese contributions to the Clinton campaigns (both Bill and Hillary (I'm sourcing Wikipedia here as they source a subscription Wall Street Journal article)). the John Kerry campaign donations, and Jihadist donations to the Obama campaign. Strange that it's more difficult to find an example of a Republican candidate taking foreign money (McCain may have had use of a dining hall in London). However, the Supreme Court specifically noted in its decision that it was not overturning laws prohibiting those exact kinds of contributions. I guess the Democrats were afraid they wouldn't be the only ones receiving the illegal donations. Luckily the Court preserved their ability to break the law and apologize when caught.

Even more incredible is that President Obama demanded Congress enact legislation to effectively overturn the Court's decision, which was based firmly on First Amendment grounds. Is this yet another sign of the President's opinion that the Constitution is something to be gotten around, a document that must be adjusted to accommodate the times rather than an instrument expressing the fundamental truths that are the basis for our nation and government? Or, perhaps, is it just another opportunity for the President to engage in class warfare, casting corporations as the antagonist of the American citizenry (damn you for employing us!!!)(P.S., I'm an LLC, so I'm only a little evil) just as he is doing with banks, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies...wait, aren't these the same people in bed with him?

In any case, by calling out the Supreme Court in the forum of the State of the Union address, our President once again showed his lack of experience and decorum that are appropriate for his position. I will breathe a sigh of relief when his stint in Office is over and I hope that his politics follow him out of office. Unfortunately, that's highly unlikely.

Sam Allito, Was He Wrong

I'm asking for some feedback here. Traditionally, the Supreme Court does not react during any State of the Union speech. If you watched last night you may have noticed they never react. Last night Justice Samuel Alito mouthed "that's simply not true", when the President said that the Court had opened the floodgates to corporate spending on campaigns. I'm unsure of any moment when the Executive has called out the Judiciary in this fashion before either, though I haven't researched the issue yet. I'd like to know what you thing, who went too far?

Mainly Because I'm Willing to Stay up All Night to Satisfy Three Readers (And That's Being Generous)

I give you my first reaction to the State of the Union speech earlier this evening.

1) The leading point of the speech was taxes on banks. Banks we want to lend money. For to hard lend money with not money given to government man. I'm sure that last sentence makes more sense than what President Obama is proposing.

2) He proposed taking $30 billion of the money returned on the TARP fund, which we borrowed from China, and giving it back to banks to loan, so we can apparently tax it? Ummm?

3) President Obama laid the groundwork for "stimulus II" calling it a jobs bill while praising (in very undertoned words) the original "stimulus" package. I'm willing to bet Tiger Woods' affairs created more jobs than the original "stimulus", much of which hasn't even been spent. He wants more.

4) The tax credit to small businesses which hire people. It sounds good, and almost pro economic. If I have to wait till the end of the year to realize a $20,000.00 tax credit to hire a secretary that makes $36,000.00, why would I hire her? Especially given that I have to pay social security taxes on her that offset the tax break and that I will likely be forced to pay for her health care. Oh, and I don't have a firm number on the tax break (nor does anyone), but I'm guessing it won't be $20K per job. Now if I could keep $20K in what I pay in taxes, I might use it to get business which might grow my own company so that I would want to hire people who might help me grow. And in case you stumbled across this blog without knowing me, I am a small business (and a large midget).

5) Elimination of capital gains taxes on investment in small businesses. Sounds good. It's a canard. You planning on investing in a 503(c)? Good luck with that, since if you could buy it, it wouldn't be a 503(c). Care to buy into my business? Again, you can't, I'm not publicly traded nor would I allow it even if I could be. Most small businesses launch off loans, not public investment which is what capital gains deals with. This could work, it would just take the money saved in taxes just to create enough jobs to check each capital gains exemption to figure out the size of the company it was invested in.

6) The President continued to talk about infrastructure spending as stimulative. It doesn't work. Build a bridge, themn come back tomorrow and ask what you can do for pay at that bridge...Construction is fine, infrastructure is neat, but it is not a sustained work. This is, again, "stimulus II".

7) President Obama used the term "the lost decade" in reference to the years under George Bush. Google that term people. It's what happened to Japan after they did what Obama is doing.

8) "I am not interested in punishing banks." Really? You may want to look at your policies.

9) We can't allow bankers to take risks which threaten the health of the economy. So we should substitute the government's acumen on banking decisions? We should eliminate the idea of risk and reward? We should keep government from bailing out bad risks....oh, wait, he couldn't have meant that.

10) California solar panels and other "green jobs". Every one he mentioned I think I've heard a story about their failure or how they have succeeded only through subsidies. He mentioned a window factory in Philadelphia. I seem to remember one a block down the street that was cheaper but didn't get money.

11) You disagree with the overwhelming evidence of global warming. Silly you, paying attention to evidence.

12) He's proposing to freeze in place double digit increases in spending on a lot of federal agencies, you just can't go over the 43% increase.

I'm getting tired of this and I imagine whoever is reading this is too. There's tons more but I'll leave it here for now.

I'm done for now. I'm starting to post the plan in increments come this weekend. the first will be immigration.

Ummmmm....Holy Shit

Care to see how racist the supposed protectors of the downtrodden minorities are? Watch this clip of Chris Matthews explaining how he forgot Obama was black because his speech was so good. Did Matthews expect him to come out reciting Jay-Z lyrics and rap for an hour plus with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden beat boxing behind him? What if Bill O'Reilly, a guy who really is just a bit right of center, had said something like that? The flames around his studio would already have been lit. But the truth is, conservatives don't think like that. We don't call the President "clean" like Joe Biden did. We don't think he'd have been serving us coffee a few years ago like Bill Clinton. And we don't worry about his use of a negro dialect like Harry Reid. Make of it what you will.

Update on the Tim Tebow Ad

Without having seen the advertisment it has elicited the comment from one "Pro-Choice" group that "this un-American hatred has no place near this american passtime (the Super Bowl). Seriously? Not aborting your child is un-American hatred?

The Holy Sacrament of Liberals: So Holy That if You Didn't Abort Your Child it is Controversial

University of Florida graduating quarterback and college football superhero Tim Tebow is set to star in an advertisement to be aired by CBS which is stirring up controversy already, even amongst people who haven't viewed the ad or read the transcripts. Tebow, a devout Christian who spent his summers doing missionary work, was part of a difficult pregnancy which threatened his mother's life. His mother chose not to abort Tim and he went on to be one of the best college football players of all time (you have no idea how much it pains me to say that as an LSU fan).

Focus on the Family decided the story would make for a good commercial and CBS felt it met all of the standards it uses in screening such commercials. So now the left is already up in arms. Apparently, an advertisement showing an alternative to abortion is evil and wrong. Maybe they should reconsider the moniker "Pro-Choice" (which has never been what you would think it means). This is how far we've fallen as a society. A story of a child and mother who made it through a difficult pregnancy and became a great success story is a heinous threat to the health and reproductive choices of American women. How about the reproductive choice you made before you got pregnant? But, Mark, you say, how can you be so callous? What about all those abortions resulting from rapes and incest? According to a 2007 study in Time magazine, a grand total of 1.5% of abortions could be attributed to rape or incest. That means 98.5% of abortions were basically a contraceptive choice. Wikipedia has a breakdown (and no, I don't necessarily trust Wikipedia) which shows a staggering 6.1% of abortions are attributed to the health of the mother or the child (called a fetus by those who are politically correct). So we can reasonably estimate that less that ten percent of all abortions involve health or physical/psychic traumas. 820,151 abortions were reported to the Centers for Disease control in 2005. So, being generous to health, physical/psychic trauma abortions, 738,136 children were aborted as a matter of convenience in 2005. Is this really what the Pro-abortion movement is trying to protect?

I don't mean to preach here, but I find it disgusting that this society even has to argue the point. This is reprehensible conduct being paraded around as a fundamental right. The argument is couched in such disingenuous terms that if you don't think about it too hard, it might seem reasonable. And to think, they get offended by someone who didn't get aborted basically saying he's glad he's alive. Pathetic.

The Unbearable Darkness of Ellie Light Continues

American Thinker has picked up on the story of Ellie Light which I wrote about last week. Since the original story, an additional 64 letters to the editor from Philadelphia to San Francisco have been uncovered. I suggested originally that the administration wouldn't be above this kind of thing. Now, I think it's clear that some liberal group is pushing this. And just think, the Tea Parties were called astroturf by Nancy Pelosi. As Ann Coulter says, you can always tell what a liberal is doing by what they accuse you of. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on this story being around for at least a while longer.

But That Was Just Pillow Talk, Baby

President Barack Obama's sudden insight making him propose a spending freeze may sound familiar to some, like anyone who watched him constantly reject the idea when it was proposed by John McCain during the presidential campaign. He rejected it at least four times. Don't get me wrong, if President Obama comes out and says he was wrong and changed his mind, that's fine. Politicians, like any other human being, should be allowed to reverse course upon further deliberation without categorically being accused of waffling. President Obama can't do that, however, because he is the source of record spending. He would have to essentially admit that all of his programs so far were a mistake. Captain Ego isn't going to let that happen.

Morons of the World, Unite!

The World Social Forum, the leftist answer to the World Economic Forum, cheered the struggles of banks and industry at the opening of the five day event in Brazil. Apparently cheering for unemployment is in vogue, I guess. I wonder if any of these idiots could present a cogent explanation of why they feel they should be handed other people's income. I mean, other than whining about how it's not fair.

Take You Pick, is Sarah Palin a Racist, or is "The Root"

"The Root" is a "daily online magazine that provides thought provoking commentary on today's news from a variety of black perspectives". I would describe it as a race-baiting liberal rag that cares less about true racism than it does trying to stir up racism. Now read this article on how President Obama is paving the way for a Sarah Palin presidency. The author uses some rather despicable language to assault Palin, including comparing her to segregationatist George Wallace (a Democrat who later recanted after becoming a born-again Christian), reconstructionist carpetbaggers, and alleging Ms. Palin is trying to fight against multi-racial inner city representatives and uppity negros. Like the idiotic Janine Garafolo before him, the author presumes that opposition to President Obama's policies are racist in nature. I believe this shows racism on the part of the accuser more than the accused. How did I come to read this race-baiting piece of garbage magazine from time to time? MSNBC links to articles from the rag often on it's website.

An Interesting Example of our President's Ego

Outgoing Representative Marion Berry (D. Ark.) (no, not the crack addict former mayor of Washington, D.C.), who has announced he won't be running again in 2010, apparently fired off a parting shot at the President, who's ego is proof not everything is bigger in Texas. Rep. Berry claimed to have sounded warnings to the administration about forcing Democrats to vote for policies that were unpopular back home. The President, when reminded of the 1994 conservative revolution under President Bill Clinton, apparently scoffed saying that his personal popularity would carry the day. Guess President Obama should stay away from reading poll numbers.

Safe Shcools My Ass

In case you don't remember what I've posted previously regarding Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar, take a look before continuing on here. Up to date? Actually, I've let a lot of this slide by as stories have continued to surface regarding this scumbag and his GLSEN group have rolled out. About a month ago, this story broke about GLSEN handing out guides to gay bars to teenagers. Pressure needs to be brought to have Kevin Jennings removed. This kind of thing is not acceptable and unless Jennings is willing to repudiate his organization he has no place in government. Hell, he should probably have a restraining order placed on him similar to what we put on pedophiles.

Today's Recommended Reading (Don, Watch Out What They May be Teaching Your Kids)

I have been meaning to write about this for a few months now, but never got around to it. Luckily, Michelle Malkin seems to have covered it for me. Observe the idiocy of liberal history.

Between Her and Sally Field, We Can Finally Enter the Blissful Gynocracy

Sally Field, who felt it necessary to pull out that old moronic line when she won an Emmy that "if women were in charge there would be no war" (apparently feminists are blissfully unaware of the Amazon women warriors of the ancient Greeks, and after all that effort to get equal education no less) really summarized what many progressive and liberal feminists (or as Rush Limbaugh accurately depicts them, Feminazis) actually think about us stupid men. To perpetuate the continuing ignorance along those lines, Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D. N.H.) announced her belief that health care legislation could easily be passed if we just sent all the men home. I'm almost positive you will never find a group of more bigotted people than amongst the liberal elite because they believe everyone is less capable than they are.

Sick of Hearing How It's George Bush's Fault? I'm Pretty Sure That's George Bush's Fault

James Carville, the rabid bulldog (and fellow LSU law alumni) of the Democratic party has revealed his groundbreaking strategy for future success for the Democrats...blame President Bush. I was sick of that strategy before Obama was even elected. I found Obama's use of this in his inaugural address to be classless and beneath the office of the President (luckily it was trumped by the racist invocation by Dr. Lowry). I almost hope that the Democrats do stick to that tactic. I can't imagine that it will be a successful tactic with anyone outside of their die-hard base, which doesn't need to be motivated anyway.

So remember, if you have a nagging cough, indigestion, your car is acting funny, your favorite CD got scratched, you're a bad lover, you can't iron out that one annoying wrinkle in your shirt, you spent millions on a catcher with bad defense and no pop in his bat, you lied before Congress about taking steroids, the ball drifted wide right on your field goal attempt, your left eye seems a little blurry this morning, you can't lose those last few pounds, you're a hopelessly naive, egotistical, radical leftist President who's version of change is to emulate Jimmy Carter without the self control, or something just feels a little off...

...BLAME PRESIDENT BUSH YOU MORON!

White House Continues Campaign to Move Math Away From Being a "Hard Science"

Three top White House officials, three Sunday talking heads shows, three different claims of how many jobs were "saved or created" by the "stimulus" package, anywhere from thousands to over two million. I'm no psychiatrist, hell, I don't even play one on TV, but these people seem to fit the description of pathological liars. If I'm a Republican candidate for anything higher than dogcatcher I'm stringing clips of these idiots into a 30 second commercial to show how little we can trust this administration and the Democratic leadership.

Man Made Global Warming Blamed for 1861-1862 Flooding

Admittedly, no one is stupid enough to say that. However, scientists gathered in California this week to model a "super storm" that would have a dramatic impact on the state. They claim that such a storm is becoming more likely as a result of climate change. Their basis for comparison? Storms which caused extensive flooding in 1861 and 1862. If memory serves, there weren't many coal fired power plants back then. It must have been the mass expansion of cow flatulence.

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse (Apologies to Newsweek for Stealing the Theme)

My New Orleans Saints, for the first time in history, are headed to the Super Bowl to face off against the Indianapolis Colts, quarterbacked by New Orleans' native son, Peyton Manning. Al Gore is set to announce later today that global cooling can be explained solely by hell freezing over.

Scientist Admits to Belief in Gravity

In news that shouldn't be a shock to anyone, one of the scientists involved in producing the IPCC report blaming exhaling for global warming admitted that unverified data was used in the report for political purposes. By definition, this is not science. It's time to consider dismantling the IPCC, if not the UN itself and to strongly consider pulling all US funding from the organization. Maybe if it could be reduced to a body designed to help coordinate international disaster relief efforts...wait, I'm pretty sure they screw that up, too.

Transparent Government, Jsut Not the Way He Meant

President Obama and congressional Democrats have cut a deal to appoint an 18 member panel to examine ways to reduce the deficit and to present a plan prior to the November 2010 elections. This from the President who has created record deficits and spent money at a record pace. I think, finally, there is some transparency in government here. You can see right through the b.s. and identify that the sole purpose of the proposal (and its pre-election timing) is to claim that there is a plan Democrats have for reducing the deficit. It's also pretty transparent that he doesn't care about the deficit.

Captain Hypocrite Leaps to his Soapbox

President Obama has come out strongly criticizing the Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign donations by corporations and unions. This coming from the President who, as a candidate, promised to only take public funds until he realized how much he was raking in from corporations and unions and opted out of the public funding system.

It Appears Someone is Planting Favorable Letters to the Editor in Support of our Poor Lord and Savior Barack Obama

It would seem that Ellie Light is an ardent fan of our poor persecuted President and has been writing a number of papers to say just how much she supports the man who can't correct all George Bush's mistakes. Problem is Ellie seems to live all over the U.S., or at least she claims to. Anyone think it is above this administration to try such a tactic?

Sleep With One Eye Open

The Associated Press is reporting on the numerous ways Democrats are likely to ignore massive opposition to the health care bill and shove it through.

Know Thine Enemy II

Read this transcript from the Rush Limbaugh broadcast earlier today. Nuff said.

Know Thine Enemy, the Unreasoning Hatred of the Left

Everything you ever needed to know about Keith Olbermann and the hatred spewing from the left these days can be found, with a grain of comedy, here. For what it's worth, I think Jon Stewart (who somehow actually respects Olbermann) is way too soft on him here. There is hatred from the extremes of both parties, but there is nothing of this kind (except other anchors on MSNBC) in the mainstream and cable news and commentary which compares to the irrational hatred shown in that video. Personally, I suggest boycotting NBC's pregame show on Sunday Night Football as it is one of its biggest money-makers and features the boorish Olbermann who can't even keep his politics off of a pre-game show.

Just 23% Short of Reality

According to this Yahoo! article, apparently 77% of investors think that President Barack Obama is anti-business. Apparently the other 23% were too busy smoking crack to respond.

I Swear I Had Nothing to do With This

OK, so I made an offhand joke when talking about Barney Frank about how Air America is suprisingly still on the air. One short day later, voila! Air America is set to cease broadcasting and will file bankruptcy. Liberals and progressives sell conflict to advance their agenda, but Air America skipped the subterfuge and went straight for pure hatred. I guess now Montel Williams will have to spew his filth on the corner of a street like the rest of the crazy people (or move into the Senate like Al Franken). I suppose it's refreshing to know that hate doesn't sell.

Market Shockingly Behaves in Predictable Manner

In news almost as shocking as the statement "water is wet", stocks tumbled early today after President-for-life Barack Obama, may the Lord God bless him and protect him from (being) evil, announced new government restrictions on banks. How can anyone really still refer to this man as an intellectual without splitting in two from laughter?

Da, Dada, Da!!!! Barney Frank, Defender of the Constitution!

Congressman Barney Frank (D. Mass), who, when given a choice of definitions for "constitution" is more likely to come up with "statistic in role playing games often used to reflect a character's ability to take damage, expressed in hit points" than the governing document of the United States of America, has suddenly sprung to the fore with his concerns over the Constitutional usurpation inherent in the filibuster. On (How are We Still on the) Air America Radio, Barney the pimp dinosaur (OK, that's not fair, it was his "paid boyfriend" that ran the male hookers out of their home), blathered about how God didn't create the filibuster and that it is creating a Constitutional crisis (just 213 years in the making). Apparently Barney didn't have a problem with the filibuster until Scott Brown (R. Mass) was elected, breaking the ability of the Democrats to circumvent the filibuster through a vote known as "cloture" ending debate on a topic through a 60 vote majority.

Well, when Barney Frank talks Constitution, I just have to check in on it because he's more likely to identify constitution as the stamina it takes to find a male hooker willing to have sex with his fat ass than he is to relate it to government. (Please note that my ad hominem attacks are both funny, and backed up by addressing the substance of the argument, so here's the substance.)

The filibuster, according to the United States Senate, became popular in the 1850's and was based upon the idea that any Senator should have the right to unlimited debate on a subject (which jives pretty well with the First Amendment). Let's keep in mind that in the 1850's, there were probably still people around who had been born around the time the Constitution went into effect (it was adopted in 1787), though they'd be admittedly old, they'd be younger than Ben Franklin when he died. I'd say the memory of our Constitution was relatively fresh. In fact, the first use mentioned by the Senate website above is 1841. The United States Constitution empowers the Senate and House to enact rules to govern its own proceedings (Article I, Section V). According to at least one text, the ability to filibuster had been in place since 1806 and the mechanism argued for by Aaron Burr in 1789. Surely these people had a grasp of the Constitution, as the ink was barely dry. Currently, Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides for the filibuster and mechanisms such as "cloture" to overcome it.

The legislative tradition of the filibuster is a little older than this, however, and likely would have been understood as a process by the framers. In fact, the practice is so old it was used by the Roman Senator Cato to head off the activities of Julius Caeser. Again, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were fully aware of the fillibuster (how's that for some alliteration?)

I would say the argument for the constitutionality of the filibuster is strong. So, Barney, please think before you speak, especially when your self interest is showing. Oh, and by the way, the cloture vote, which theoretically at least violates the First Amendment by silencing political speech (the most highly protected form of speech), was passed as a result of the urging of...wait for it...President Woodrow Wilson, the grandfather of the American progressive movement and a man with zero respect for the Constitution. He and Barney have a lot in common, come to think of it.

Big Blow to Obamacare

The ball is now in the Democrats' court regarding what steps to take in order to try to pass their health care bill as the AP has called the election, Martha Coakley has conceded, and a Republican who campaigned against the health care bill now sits in the Senate seat formerly occupied by Democrat Ted Kennedy. Don't bet that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will take this as anything other than a bump in the road on the way to shoving through the bill.

Update on Tomorrow's Massachusetts Senate Election

According to the latest group of polls, all but one conducted by the Daily Kos (which is a hugely progressive website with no compulsion to deliver truth) which showed a tie, Republican Scott Brown is anywhere from 5 to 11 points ahead going into tomorrows special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. I am cautiously optimistic that Brown can win the election. Apparently so are the current Democrats in power as they continue to try to find ways to take voting out of play on the final health care bill. If they take this route after a Brown victory, they are going to have to try and distance the Massachusetts election and the health care bill. Given the Brown is strongly emphasizing that his election means a chance to kill the bill, this is going to be a difficult sell. Mainly because it will be a blatant lie. But they seem pretty comfortable with that idea.

Today's Recommended Reading

The Democratic need to blame everything on President Bush has officially become an unhealthy fixation. This article details the idiocy after a rally for Martha Coakley. In Michael Chricton's "Rising Sun", one of the characters talks about the Japanese business model and the attitude of "fix the problem, not the blame". I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but I love the idea. Democrats, faced with an inability to fix problems due to the flawed logic of social dependency, can only try to fix the blame.

Massachusetts Still in Play to the Stupid Voters

Keep an eye or ear closely tuned to the news on Tuesday to see if the Republicans can take former Democratic Senator Teddy Kennedy's seat. It should be exciting and I tend to think that the election, win or lose, is a referendum against Obamacare. Of course, if liberals have their way, the actual vote count wouldn't matter nor would the election rules. MSNBC commentator and radio talk show host Ed Schultz has declared that he would try to vote 10 times to swing the election to Coakley. This is, again, proof that progressives believe you are too dumb to govern yourself and their ideas are more important than democracy. This is again reflected in the liberal media where in an article critical of Coakley's campaign mistakes, the writer still feels the need to bash Brown saying "let's be honest, his nights probably aren't tied up with Mensa meetings". Conservatives are dumb, liberals and progressives are smart. It's a mantra that has been repeated so often that I believe many people become liberals and progressives to avoid being called stupid, which is, of course, stupid. Don't believe me? Think how Reagan was a bumbling fool but Carter a luminary, Clinton brilliant and Bush an idiot, Obama an intellectual who can't give a speech without a teleprompter while the big, fat, idiot (per Senator Al Franken's (D. Minn.) book) Rush Limbaugh gives one and a half hour extemporaneous speeches at CPAC. In fact, a hoax regarding the IQ of presidents over the last 50 years was widely circulated and bought into (my "ethics" professor in my master's degree program distributed it to the class) which showed every Democratic President being smarter than every Republican President with the exception of Richard Nixon.

Another Blow to Global Warming "Science"

Yet more proof that the U.N. Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change is about as reliable as Keith Olbermann has emerged. The IPCC included in its 2007 report a claim that the Himalayan glaciers, receding faster than any others in the world, could melt by 2035. The only problem is that such a claim defies physics and glaciologists call the claim "lucdicrous". The idea came from an interview in 1999 with a little known Indian scientist who has stated that there was no factual basis for the claim. Perhaps all the idiots who think the Constitution contains the words "separation of church and state" should stop pushing their religion on everyone else.

More Fallout From the Threat of Victory in Massachusetts

We hadn't heard the term reconcilliation in a while, but it's being thrust back out into the fore. Reconcilliation would avoid the need for 60 votes to pass the health care reform bill and with the Massachusetts seat in play, Democrats are talking about using the process to get the bill across if they lose the seat. These people are desparate to pass something, no matter how unpopular it becomes, the will of the people be damned.

Further Developments in Massachusetts

According to this piece in the Washington Examiner, Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley's own internal polls show her five points behind Republican Scott Brown. Citing one Democratic source who says that with those numbers Coakley is "destined to lose", the article notes that some Democrats are beginning to use the Creigh Deeds strategy of distancing the candidate from President Obama. However, reports are coming out that Obama may be running to Massachusetts to try and get Coakley over the hump.

Panicked Democrats are trying to rush the compromise bill to the floor as its popularity continues to drop and the possibility of losing the 60 vote supermajority threatens the bill. Funny how the less popular the measure becomes, the more urgent it is to pass it. Much like the late Ted Kennedy and the soon to retire Christopher Dodd with their "waitress sandwich", I guess "no" doesn't mean "no" to Democrats. Or maybe I'm just not enlightened enough to understand.

The Absolute Derision of the Left

Senator Chuck Schumer (D. NY), in an effort to smear Massachusetts Senate candidate Republican Scott Brown, is the latest progressive to show his complete distaste for the common man and woman in the United States of America, utilizing the term teabagger to describe Brown's political views. Teabagging is a term for a sex act which has been used derisively to refer to conservative grassroots activists who have largely stood up against wasteful, massive government spending whose movement is the Tea Party movement. Schumer and his ilk are once again demonstrating the widespread feeling amongst the liberal intellectual elitists that the average man or woman in the street is just a fool that needs to be taken care of, cradle to grave, by them. Luckily, at least one poll shows Brown has actually taken the lead going into Tuesday's special election. If Brown wins the Senate seat, it would be a historically massive upset coming from a historically liberal/progressive state and as it would constitute a potentially critical blow to the Obama/progressive agenda and could be considered a referendum on the health care reform bills.

In fact, such a win would likely leave Schumer so shocked as to be slack jawed, which is, coincidentally, the position he'd need to hold to be teabagged.

Time for You Religious Folks to Get Out of Health Care

Democratic candidate for the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, whose constituency is a little over 1/3 Catholic, when commenting on working in the emergency room graciously allowed that you can keep your religious freedom as a Catholic, but it would be best if you don't work in an emergency room if they might have any moral qualms about some issues. She notes that we have "separation of church and state". As I've previously discussed, these words do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It's called the Establishment Clause, not the Separation Clause, of the First Amendment. What Coakley is saying is that the legislature, by creating a right to health care, is actually creating a right that takes precedence over the free exercise of religion (note that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)" does actually appear in the Constitution). This is just one more instance in which progressives reveal their belief, whether express or subconscious, that the legislature is the source of rights and that any natural rights granted by a Creator are secondary, if they exist at all.

But then, who would expect a member of the legislative branch to understand the Constitution these days?

Danny Glover, Actor, Humanitarian, Activist, Absolute Idiot

It's bad enough that Pat Robertson is running around saying Haiti has been cursed since making a pact with Satan to expel the French, now intellectual luminary Danny Glover, a man who thinks Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez is a swell chap, has blamed the Haitian earthquake on the failure to make an agreement on the climate at Copenhagen. I knew there was a reason I liked the scene in "2012" when the aircraft carrier drops on Danny's head.

Just One More Reason to Fear the Germans

Really? The Obama musical?

It's OK to be Racist, as Long as You're on "the Right Side of History"

In accepting Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (Dem. NV)'s apology for what are debatedly racial remarks, President Obama noted that he has been on the right side of history. I think maybe it's time we have a discussion about what Obama meant. I'll present my explanation of that soon, and it's got more to do with institutionalized racism than history.

Today's Recommended Reading

I give you the official Obama criticizer, Bo Snerdley. OK, he's from Rush, not me.

Brought to You by the Makers of the Environmentally Friendly 2,000 Page Bill Waiting for Amendments to be Added

Legislators, many of which are willing to spend millions of your dollars to fly to Denmark in the hopes of saving the environment as tons of carbon dioxide, which they feel is the cause of the threat to the environment, spews from their travel arrangements + attempt at nobility/social engineering + hugely overcounted number of uninsured people + lie that lack of insurance is a fatal condition = millions of trees sacrificed to produce two monstrous health care bills waiting for revision to become one abomination of a health care bill.

Legislation + desire to accomplish both revenue and promoting activities (i.e. deductions for favored activities such as charity donations) + regulatory agency + years of revisions + court decisions = the commissioner of the IRS feels the tax code is too complex to do his own taxes. Please note that it is highly likely that his salary is exempt from federal income taxes.

Oddly enough, these equations are almost as scientific as those used to promote man made global warming.

I Think My Ire is Running Low

I think I've actually started to run out of the energy it takes to talk about all the nonsense going on these days. I think that, but only up until the point that I read stories like this one from Breitbart. I couldn't get past the title before my eyes rolled back into my head.

The Open and Transparent Administration Gets Even More Open and Transparent

MSNBC...wait...I had to check that, but it's correct, MSNBC is reporting that the White House has abandoned its pretend calculations of jobs created or saved by stimulus funding. Now, the stimulus funds will be counted towards jobs if they are used for any part of payroll, including raises for existing employees and jobs that were never in any danger of being lost. In related news, a tidal wave of bullshit is about to drown the country.

OK, So I'm Still Working on the Plan

It took me a while for most of my good posts, so be patient.

I'm No Artist but...

Now that's art, the frozen Al Gore sculpture commissioned yearly until the Goracle debates global warming.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas....Wait, Wasn't That a Few Weeks Ago

Senator Christopher Dodd (Scumbag, Conn.) is expected to announce his retirement once his current term is up. Dodd joins a growing list of rats abandoning ship as the Democrats steam forward against popular opinion on every program. Senator Byron Dorgan (D. N.D.) has announced he won't be seeking reelection either. We are experiencing the first small waves, lapping at the shore, of the tsunami created by an earthquake the liberals created. Call government expansion continental drift. It has eeked forward, even under Reagan, slowly, with brief spurts. The tension built until this administration sublimated itself to the world (think about it, the analogy works) and the shockwave began. The turning point may be here. Saturday, I'm going to give you my ideas, in as much as I can. I hope you will be reading then and I hope you'll invite others.

You Know, Transparent. Like Steel.

Well, faced with his campaign commitment to broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, President Obama, through White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, derided the idea that such a thing was necessary or even wise. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D. Cal.) talked about how open the closed door debates have been. This while C-SPAN practically begged to televise the debates. Maybe this is because the final debate to reconcile the House and Senate versions is to be done outside of committee, behind closed doors, hopefully in a smoke filled room.

To be Sung to the tune of "Yesterday"

Sovereignty,
It's not the concept that it used to be,
My President gives it away so damned freely,
Oh, sovereignty,
You left so suddenly,

Why you had to go, I don't know,
It's Interpol,
I said somethings wrong, now I long,
for sovereignty...y..y..y...sovereignty.

President Obama's desire to hand off every bit of American sovereignty to the world at large continued, very quietly, last month, as he handed Interpol protection from the limitations of Constitutional rights in conducting activities inside the United States as well exempting them from being subject to any U.S. oversight. It just has to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

National Public Radio "Fairly Unbalanced"

Ah yes, that ever so evenhanded nationally funded station with the people who speak at a level so inaudible they could be drowned out by the clapping of a one handed man. Speaking of which, here are some of your tax dollars at work (you don't think they work solely on donations, do you?), ridiculing the tea party movement adopting that oh, so wonderful and intelligent counterargument of calling them by a sexual act. HOW CLEVER!!! F***king morons feel free to apply within.

My Newest Love Letter to Congressman Joesph Cao (RINO, La.)

I received your form letter regarding your recent vote on health care. I would like you to address the following:

1) You state that you believe health care is a moral obligation. What makes you think the government has, or should have, the power of enforcing affirmative moral obligations upon society? You are not voting for an obligation, you are trying to legislate a right into creation where none existed. Tom Harkin has clearly expressed the idea that this is just a step towards an inalienable right which will be expanded upon and granted by the government. I believe Christianity is a moral obligation. Should we establish Christianity as a state religion? Or should we continue to leave freedom of religion as it was intended, a right granted by our Creator, not our government. I'll agree not to enforce my moral obligations on you if you'll agree not to enforce them on me.

2) You state that the Stupak amendment will only provide federal funding for abortions in limited cases, including rape and incest. I believe that abortion should only be an option in the case of a clear medical necessity and that it is the taking of a life without any justifiable cause. Will I be able to segregate my tax dollars from this funding or do I have to go to jail to preserve my religious beliefs?

3) You conclusorily state that health care in the United States lags behind other countries. I submit that the studies I think matter show it clearly is the best. You cite as evidence increases in diseases. Does insurance prevent disease? Will insurance curb the rate of HIV infections in the city? Will diabetes rates drop because of insurance? The opposite is actually true as economics and behavioral science tells us that people increase risky behaviors as a result of insurance mitigating that risk.

4) You fail to address the employment consequences of the bill. Higher taxes on the middle class. Taxes on health benefits. Likely loss of jobs or benefits. Higher payroll taxes on small business, etc.

5) You also missed the biggest and most obvious flaw of your argument. There are no uninsured persons in Louisiana. We have a charity hospital system that serves all, paid for by tax dollars. And still those health concerns you cite continue to rise. Every state that has attempted universal coverage has failed to do so without drastic negative consequences.

I submit, sir, that your vote has more to do with the political expediency of getting reelected than it does with any sense of moral obligation as your supposed moral obligation defies all logic. I will put whatever money and time I can to have you defeated in the Republican primary or to find an independent candidate to protect the people from a government gone off the rails and to restore ideas of constitutionality to the actions of our legislature. The hope I had for you upon your election is long gone. You have been a great disappointment to me.

Mark R. Ladd, Esq

I'm Easing Myself Back Into the Waters, So Be Patient With Me

God Creates Man, Science Destroys God, Government Appoints Itself New Creator

Philosopher and misogynist Friedrich Nietchze famously postulated in his work "The Gay Science" that God is dead and we have killed him. Our founding fathers held that the inalienable rights of man are deprived from his Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Senator Tom Harkin (D. Iowa) believes that government gives rights to the people. Therefore, Senator Tom Harkin appears to think he is our Creator, or at least that government is our Creator. At the very least, Tommy Boy seems to believe that government grants the rights that men enjoy. If that is indeed the case: A) the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are meaningless scraps of paper that we are spending way too much in tax dollars to preserve; and B) government can take away any right that it sees fit through legislation.

I'm not going to go as far as Glenn Beck does in the transcript linked to above, mainly because I think Tommy Boy and other politicians are too stupid to think through what they're saying. It does give an insight to how Tommy Boy and progressives feel government and the citizenry interact, as master and slave.

Our legislative branch, with the full support of the executive, is on a fool's errand, a drunk at 3 a.m. driving around in a stupor looking for another beer and God is dead and the people in the street be damned for they are above the law.