ACORN: back again I see

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/14/acorn-exposed

I guess you can say that the war I waged against ACORN was not in vain. Now more major news sources (mostly linked to by the drudge report) are opening fire on ACORN. But, ironically, it is not the group coming under assault for showing people how to create brothels with your tax dollars, it is-of course-the people who dared attempt to expose what this group is doing. 

As the article suggests, ACORN is a criminal organization. Be it intentional or not, and regardless of whether or not it involves the top levels of this organization, there are still (and have been in the past) problems with this organization. Every organization has problems: this group just happens to have them regarding the laws of this nation. And the fact that this happened not only once, but twice only makes me feel less confident in the abilities of this group regardless of how noble their goals once sounded.

Obviously, these are not the people you should want anywhere near your state’s electoral votes. Not because the people at the top are bad, but because the group has frequently wound up in conflict with the laws of this nation. 

Now, way back when in the primaries then candidate Barack Obama said we should judge him based on those he surrounds himself with (I’m paraphrasing). If he wishes to associate with a group that so oft runs afoul of the law as ACORN does, what does that say about him?

The Internet Is Serious Business

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6801213.ece

Apparently, some people just can’t take an insult. I guess the fact that an online insult carries less validity because its owner is often anonymous is a national secret. 

The fact that some people are worried about finding and suing a person who dares not only to have a less than sparkling opinion of them, but to tell others of it, is shocking to me. The worst part of this case isn’t the fact that it seems more appropriate for a middle school principle’s office, it’s the fact that it will set a precedent on how laws are to be interpreted. 

Could you imagine the repercussions of a political figure doing this? All of a sudden, we now have a tool by which an official may handicap his opponents for using a hyperbole. A ten second “sound-bite” can cost someone not only an election, but their financial well being on top of that. A gaffe shouldn’t cost anyone more than their political career. 

Just think, had this precedent been established a few years earlier and the Bush administration could have used it to arrest/sue protestors calling George W. Bush (or any other member of the administration) “fascists,” “nazis,” or “baby-killers.” But of course, then it would be government oppression. In this case, it’s a “helpless” victim under assault from an anonymous, powerful “cyber-bully.” One blog post will in no way ruin a career, after all, George W. Bush got elected two times regardless of what the Huffington Post, Daily Kommunist, or even the New York Slimes (a “prestigious” news paper renowned for its “journalism”) had to say about him. Unpopular as he may have been, he still pulled it off. 

In the words of an impression of Chopper Reid on the Ronnie Johns half hour: harden the fuck up.

Ronald Reagan Talks About Socialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Here it is, Ronald Reagan pointing out how socialized medicine is a gateway to greater and more comprehensive socialism. Ronald Reagan said this in 1961, and we’re seeing the whole socialized medicine “foot in the door” policy just now. 

His assault on socialized medicine clearly points out how socialized medicine will erode our freedom. He then points out how that erosion of freedom will lead to a system of complete government control. He defends individual liberties: something that we rarely hear today’s politicians doing. 

If Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were still around, I guess we’d have two more staunch opponents of obamacare.

In fact, Goldwater has already spoken about centrally planned economies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhgeEEDglnY

Since the end of the Cold War, Barry Goldwater has been one thing: right.

More Proof of Press Bias

As if we needed more proof of the bias of the news media in the United States, it just keeps coming. Courtesy of the Drudge Report, we have been provided with a link proving that the TEA Parties in April and the Town Hall protestors aren’t nearly as thuggish as people who protested during the Bush administration. In fact, not only were they nowhere near as violent, the press also under-reported (more like ignored) the violent acts committed by the leftists.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/analysis-press-largely-ignored-incendiary-rhetoric-bush-protest/

They even picked on a seventy five year old, wheelchair bound man with multiple sclerosis. Yet of course, those crazy TEA party protestors, and those violent town hall protestors have done much worse right? Wrong! The thugs sent out from ACORN, the SEIU and other semi-criminal unions have beaten up more people on instructions from the White House. 

These protestors from 2002 slashed tires, threw rocks and spewed “incendiary rhetoric,” but of course, nobody-with the exception of fox-dares to bring this up. No “news outlet” other than fox (which is often scoffed at for its bias, from news organizations with biases of their own) has decided to challenge the repeated dishonesty of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Steny Hoyer and company. These are the same people who in 2001 would have told you “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Today though, they play a different song on their respective drums: “conform, drink the kool-aid, do what we say.”  They even have decided to label these protestors as “unamerican.” How cute, they’re pulling a page right out of good old Joe McCarthy’s playbook. I suppose next we can have show trials for “fascists” right?

This must be the “change” they promised: hypocrisy, misinformation, and good old-fashioned dishonesty.

Congressional Waste!

Guess who is spending $500 million on new corporate jets? No, not General Motors, guess again. No, not AIG, guess again. Yes, you guessed it, Congress. Not only are they spending your tax dollars on corporate jets for their own use (I fail to see how Nancy Pelosi’s new jet is going to benefit the nation as a whole), but they’re spending money allocated for the national defense on it.

I’m no expert on the national defense but, how is a jet which will only be used to ferry members of Congress to and fro, with no bomb racks, and with no ability to transport large amounts of soldiers/munitions supposed to pertain to the defense of this nation? It is in no way benefitting the defense of this nation, therefore, luxuriating on the Pentagon’s (and our) dime is wrong. Here’s the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

How about that, I’m going have to get angry about a second instance of Congressional waste (I wouldn’t be so mad about it if it didn’t exist). There must be a two for one sale on angry right wing diatribes today.

Supposedly 10 Congresspersons had a vacation on your money while they were going to “study global warming.” Because Congress uses a lot of air travel, and it is difficult to calculate their travel expenses, I’m just going to assume that for ten people to go out of the country and hit up some pretty nice tourist locations, it’s gonna cost a whole lot of money. This would be no problem if they paid out of their own pockets (that’s what they get a salary for in the first place). But, because this was a “Congressional delegation” it’s coming out of our pockets. 

The fact is that these trips were in no way necessary. It was in no way necessary to spend this much of the taxpayer’s money on travel which would have a personal, unofficial, recreational component to it. That is just plain unethical. Last year, $13 million was spent on Congressional travel, it’s increased 10 fold since 1995, and most of this increase has come in recent years. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html

The Problem with Central Planning

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090807/lf_nm_life/us_cuba_crisis_toiletpaper_1

What do most people think of when they think of communism? I think of people waiting in long queues for inferior, expired products that they’ll never have another chance at getting. I also think of what happens when central planners make a mistake. In Cuba’s case, they lucked out because the mistake was made with toilet paper instead of food. In other words: it could have been a whole lot worse.

There are many systems of governance which tend to lead to centrally planned economies: communism, marxism, socialism, fascism, etc.. Whenever humans are in charge, they have the ability to make errors. The old maxim states “to err is human” this is true, especially in government. So, if humans can make errors, and humans are in complete control of all aspects of an economy, the result usually causes problems for the whole nation (in cases of underproduction and in some cases of overproduction), and -especially when food and medicine are concerned-these errors have the potential to be tragic. 

Let’s think for a second about a health care emergency under a single payer system (according to the president, his plan will create one of these). A single payer system-or the final stage of a government run plan-is a centrally planned healthcare system, this is in no way misinformation [translation: there's no need to put me on an enemies list for this]. Suppose, someone in the bureaucracy decides that we won’t vaccinate as many people in the next few years for polio and orders less and less as the years go by. Suppose that during one year there is a baby boom, and we’re left with a “vaccine gap.” Even though they can be vaccinated the next year, if this were life or death situation involving say kidneys or blood transfusions, someone is going to have to die, and people are going to have to be viewed by some bureaucrat or central planner as potential assets to society (they will be objectified). Now those deemed of greater value, are allowed to live, all else will be consigned to fend for themselves. 

The reasons people are picked though, are completely up to the bureaucrat, and, with the way things in Washington (or in Politics in general for that matter) work, I wouldn’t want to put my life in these people’s hands.

Doctors: Fix What’s on the Books First

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6563705.html

I guess you could say we’re entering part two of our series on the “health care crisis.” First we talked about the “mobs of paid GOP brownshirt skinhead hacks,” if you need reference as to what the backing of these claims by Barbara Boxer feel free to look over some of my previous work, or just check out this other wordpress blogger’s site:

http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/meet-the-mob/

I’d suggest you do both. 

I like what the doctors in the first article are saying: we need to fix the laws that are already on the books and make sure they’re working properly before we destroy them completely and start from scratch. This is called the reform process, it involves being sure that what we’ve got on the books is effective, efficient and working how it is supposed to. 

I’m bringing this up because it’s important that we as Americans make sure that our money isn’t just being thrown at things to fix them. I also would like to make sure that people are given coverage in a natural, rational way as opposed to some people being viewed as more important as others. Should there be a shortage of kidneys or flu vaccines, I believe it would be wrong to ration them out by the government’s definition of “who’s the most valuable to society.” Let’s face it, this sort of organization could lead to problems: favoritism, corruption, rewarding supporters, nepotism, and punishing people for “thinking outside the box” and not just “drinking the kool-aid.” 

We see enough of these things in our lives as it is, and all of them can be disgusting (especially if we’re not benefiting from them). Just imagine though, if you or I is up next in line for our vaccination against [insert super-virus here] and some bureaucrat decides that someone can cut us because even though he may not be of “greater value to society” he-just like our bureaucrat-went to Yale: that’s just wrong. When lives are at stake, this type of behavior is ludicrous. Those who have paid for their insurance and healthcare deserve the “first dibs” because they have paid to ensure that they will get them. Nobody, except nobody should decide that you or I should be “cut in line,” being given the opportunity to decide people’s value to society gives an individual a copious amount of power; the same power for a government is called tyranny.

Unions are Violent Too!

I hope you all can recall the quote in one of my older posts from a video of Barbara Boxer “these people are out to hurt our president”. I stated that this quote implied that the aggressive -but still peaceably assembled- protesters at the town hall meetings were somehow violent and bloodthirsty. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws

Well, if that is the case, then Unions must be even worse. Here they are roughing up a guy they don’t agree with. I don’t think I heard of that at the town hall meetings where Conservatives came. Albeit they were loud and aggressive, there were no news reports of people being harmed insofar as a whole group ganged up on them to rough them up. 

I’d also like to draw your attention back to the Vietnam war era: leftist protests normally turned violent. Need any reminders: the 1968 Democratic National Convention anyone? Didn’t think we still remembered that did you. 

The fact that I have yet to be provided with any evidence of Conservative protestors beating up their opponents, but that I have just provided evidence of union members beating up an opponent means something: apparently some people know the meaning of peaceable a little better than others. And although there were reports of a Congressman being chased out to his car, there were no reports of actual physical harm done by Conservative Protestors. 

I’d like to mention that the Democrats know this, and are trying to denounce and discredit these protestors while misinforming the public.

A Good Unconstitutional Thought

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6123/show

I would like to start by saying that 99.99% of all free speech on the internet is completely harmless, even if some of it is harshly worded. The fact is that other than parents raising their children right, nothing needs to be done about “cyber-bullying.” 

The fact is that the internet is-if anything- the last haven of true, anonymous free speech. I wouldn’t say any of this if I didn’t believe it in full. Sure there are trolls, and sure there are persistent, virulent racists; we can ignore them here on the internet just as easily as many people choose to in real life. Thus explains an internet expression “don’t feed the troll.” If you feel someone is just plain abrasive, nobody is forcing you to read their post, message, etc.: on facebook, you can delete messages on your wall you don’t like, in a forum nobody forces you to read something, I control all of the comments in this blog (a power I like but don’t exercise much). 

People can say what they want in real life, they can do the same thing on the internet. At least, in many areas of the web there is anonymity. 

This comes in handy when writing political opinions. Could you imagine if my address were on this webpage, or were leaked: I could be getting some angry letters, maybe even a few death threats if I happen to be particularly angry. This anonymity factor protects me, it allows me to snipe at politicians who I feel are running the country wrong, even if I didn’t elect them. I’m not coercing people with anything more than logic (unlike the black panthers who hung out at polling locations in Philadelphia, or like ACORN for that matter). 

This law will only benefit three groups: the insecure, those with something to hide, and those in power. In other words: religions (including Atheism), the Obama administration, the Pelosi Congress, the Reid Senate, and, anyone with the time, energy and money to hire a lawyer and pursue their claim. Basically this can only hurt aspiring journalists, muckrakers and any critic of any politician. And with Sotomayor being confirmed, my bet is that she will be a staunch opponent of the free, anonymous speech of the internet. In fact, my bet is that this law will be interpreted and enforced to hurt anyone who isn’t in a position of power. 

In seeking to eliminate bullies, this law has created a whole new caste of bullies.

Boxer Mad About Town Hall Protests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV84OBtGpSQ

The problem with Barbara Boxer’s assertions here is that she doesn’t specify how these people want to “hurt our president.” They don’t want to cause physical harm to my knowledge (there haven’t been all that any assassination attempts that have came close to successful). The harm  is only political, and even then, the Democrats deserve it: they promised change from the bloated government of George W. Bush and we have yet to get any. In fact, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, and, under their command the deficit has only increased. News flash: the president doesn’t have as much control over the budget as Congress does.

The people have every right to assemble, and protest the actions of their Congressman or Congresswoman, and, regardless of who is organizing the said assembly, if all of the assembled mass was from that Congressperson’s constituency, the Congressperson better listen. Any elected official would consider it beneficial to him if his constituents told him that what he was doing wasn’t in their best interests. 

It shocks me that anyone would dare deride these people for exercising their rights. On a daily basis the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and ABC propagate the misinformation they call news under the protections of the first amendment, yet, if anyone else so much as dares to question their point of view (which happens to be that of Mrs. Boxer) they are somehow overstepping their bounds. 

This is the hypocrisy the left disseminates on the First Amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America: their propaganda may do whatever it pleases and all others are just a mob out to physically harm those they do not agree with. Might I remind Mrs. Boxer that some of her environmentalist friend’s actions ought to be considered and prosecuted like terrorism (see Whale Wars on Animal planet).