Monday, December 21, 2009
Business as usual in the cesspool that is our nation’s capitol. Apparently since not everyone has caved to the pressure mounted by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to vote in favor of the Health Care debacle, they have resorted to bribery to get the support they need.
While Sen. Ben Nelson got a particularly juicy concession -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- in the health care bill, support from a slew of other senators likewise came with its price.
Sen. Ben Nelson's hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill.
While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a "yes" vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price.
Western states got more money for hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Louisiana got up to $300 million in Medicaid benefits. The list goes on.
Senate Republicans lined up Saturday to decry the latest deal targeted toward Nebraska, which was decried as the "cornhusker kickback."
"Votes have been bought," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.
But Senate Democrats said the payoffs are nothing unusual, and in fact typical.
Stupid cunt. We fought a Civil War so we could be the “United” States. The nature of democracy is doing the will of the people. All the people. Not just the ones who vote for you. Politicians have a sacred trust to preserve the Union. To keep our entire country afloat. But no, get your fucking snout in the trough Klobuchar and just worry about yourself.
-- Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase," though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.
-- Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money -- a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.
-- Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population "frontier" states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the "special deal," telling "Fox News Sunday" that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. "That doesn't offend me at all," he said. "It's in fact, fair."
-- Florida, New York and Pennsylvania -- where five of six senators are Democrats -- will have their seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.
-- Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.
-- One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state's only "public academic medical and dental school." It's unclear for which state that language was written.
-- Nebraska's Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska's benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.
Better make sure the wool stays over they eyes of America. As long as we have Big Macs, Reality TV, TMZ and our fucking I-Pod earphones stuck in our ears, we can pretend that this fine, strong, wonderful country is not falling to pieces around us. Don’t look up from your smart phones America, you might be too shocked to post on Facebook.
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman didn't extract any payoffs for Connecticut. Rather, he succeeded in stripping the government-run insurance plan from the Senate health bill, along with a proposed expansion of Medicare that he recently said he opposes.
Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
Monday, December 7, 2009
From FOXNews-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement -- even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.
Senate Republicans on Monday called Reid's comments "offensive" and "unbelievable."
But Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"
He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.
"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond's famous 1957 filibuster -- the late senator switched parties several years later.
Reid's office stood by the remarks, with spokesman Jim Manley saying Republicans have "done nothing but obstruct health care" in the Senate.
"Today's feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare," Manley said.
But Republicans said they were genuinely appalled. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Reid's remarks were over the top.
"That is extremely offensive," he told Fox News. "It's language that should never be used, never be used. ... Those days are not here now."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who on the Senate floor read from this FoxNews.com article and asked that it be placed in the record, called on Reid to return to the floor and, if not apologize, at least explain what he meant.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested Reid was starting to "crack" under the pressure of the health care reform debate.
"I think it's beneath the dignity of the majority leader," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said. "I personally am insulted."
This is Harry Reid, and by his lead, the rest of the Democrats in Congress saying "Get on the bus or under it". The Democrats have decided they have their moment in History, and all be damned who dare stand against their agenda. This is not what America should stand for, and this is not what America should put up with. When one party decides that it is right, and no discussion, debate or deliberation is needed, that amounts to totalitarianism. With a Democratic Congress and Democrat in the White House, the Liberal Left has determined they will simply ram through Social Engineering, Entitlement Programs, and Spend Heavy Policies. It's bad enough they won't listen to their peers in Congress, but they have also turned a deaf ear to a large part of America. Ask King George how that turned out. I say this to every member of Congress...Beware, you do not act with impunity. You cannot hide from the righteous indignation of The People.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The framers are explaining why they are taking such a drastic and dangerous step towards independence. They are not just usurping the rule of the King of England, but eschewing the entire population of Great Britian. They are drawing a line and saying to the world; “Yes, we have sprung from the same lineage as the people of Britian, however, we have changed, and to allow us to continue to grow as a people, we must sever the ties that bind us to that Empire.” This being such a huge step, they will now explain why they are taking it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The framers now state that it should be obvious (self-evident) to everyone that we (Americans) are the equal of any group of citizens in the world,a nd furthermore, we have some rights, God given, that no one should be able to take away from us. Those are the right not to be killed arbitrarily by a foreign power, the right to our freedom, both as individuals and as a country, and the right to live our lives in a way that brings us happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Because we have, and need to retain these rights, we form governments. These governments function and rule because we, the people, consent to be governed by the. It is a symbiotic relationship, but the framers are clear to show that a government that does not serve the will of the people is, in fact, no government at all.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
They go on to say that when a government no longer meets is simple charter to protect life, preserve liberty and allow the pursuit of happiness the people have the right to get rid of it, and to form a new government, based on the form that they see most fit. A simple reminder to both Kings and politicians that nothing they do is above censure, and that if they choose to no longer serve the will of the people, they can, and should be replaced.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The framers remind us that changing governments is not a decision to be taken lightly. In fact, they tell us a well known truth; man is more likely to continue to suffer evil than to take the risk of change.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
However, every group has it’s breaking point. And when man has suffered long enough, he can, AND SHOULD, throw off the yoke of oppression and build something new. They remind us that not only is this our right, it is, in fact, our duty.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Now, they will lay out the case against the King of England:
— He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
— He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
— He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
— He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
— He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
— He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
— He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
— He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
— He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
— He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
— He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
— He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
— He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
— For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
— For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
— For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
— For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
— For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
— For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
— For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
— For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
— For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
— He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
— He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
— He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
— He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
— He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Wow, King George was quite a tool.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
They want to remind us again that they do not take sedition and mutiny lightly. The framers wanted to world to know that they tried their best to affect a change without these drastic measure, but their attempts were heartily rebuffed.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
This section is an indictment of the British government as well as the King. The framers wanted everyone to know that they held no personal grudge against the British people, but because of their continued support of a despotic tyrant, they were just as culpable as the King himself. They do extend an olive branch here and remind Britian that once the war is over, we have such common bonds that assuredly we will remain friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
And that’s it. This final section states the obvious, in an offcial manner. We are now agreed that the ties that bind are severed. We are our own country. Now it is official policy; we shall all surely “hang together” if we fail in our endeavors.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
From Foxnews- Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" -- It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.
The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.
Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.
For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."
Monday, November 9, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The cure? Wiener Dogs. I suggest 3 or more. Nothing is as therapeutic or cathartic as watching a herd of Wiener Dogs chase each other under the couch, under your bed, or under your feet. They don't eat much, and no matter how bleak the outlook for the future, they give you this look (see picture) when you call their name. The look that says; "Hey, everything is OK, if it weren't, would I be chasing these other dogs around?"
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister, said "we are capturing the spirit of the times, the needs of the era."
Did they not have anyone else? No one else? What about Brad Pitt, or that kid that caught the fly ball and threw it back on the field? They both seem equally worthy.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
If America does indeed face a financial meltdown, what will be the currency of the aftermath? Well, since the beginning of recorded history, precious metals have been the currency of choice. It seems to follow that if our printed money becomes worthless, a person with an amount of precious metals might be able to better barter for what they need in life.
Where can one get precious metals? Well, Apmex makes it easy. Here are a few investments you might consider and the pros and cons for each:
Gold- Gold is currently running around $1000 an ounce, and even though Apmex offers 1/2, 1/4 and 1/10th ounce rounds, gold might be a little too much to use for regular barter. If you can afford it, keep some on hand to make capital purchases such as farm equipment, vehicles, land and firearms, but it is probably a little too much for your everyday prepper.
Silver- Available in pure silver and junk silver, this may be your best bet for investment. 1 oz. Silver American Eagle coins can be had for less than $20 each typically. Silver is around $16 an ounce on the open market, and is sure to climb in value after a crash. Silver rounds would be excellent currency in this case.
Junk silver refers to coinage that is less than 100% pure silver, such as US dollar coins, half dollars, quarters, dimes and nickles made prior to 1935. For instance, Morgan dollars produced between 1878 and 1904 are 90% silver. To use them for currency, agree on a price per ounce for silver, weigh your coins and take 90% of that amount to get a correct price. Morgans can be had for around $15 each currently. Barber and Mercury dimes are also popular and are available in rolls of 50 for less than $100.
The Apmex site is an excellent reference and learning tool and offers both US and foreign silver, gold, platinum and palladium coins, ingots and collectors items.
Get it now, don't wait. Gold and silver may become our only source of portable wealth if we face a financial collapse in the coming years.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Wicked Witch of the West Coast, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has drawn a line in the sand. And by doing so, she labels any American who opposes larger, more invasive government a “domestic terrorist”.
Pelosi invokes the specter of right wing violence and impending doom to push the Socialist Agenda of the left’s anointed king, President Obama. Here is it, with RB6’s comments as well:
From Fox News-
WASHINGTON -- Republicans are rejecting comparisons made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came near to tears Thursday when she compared anti-government rhetoric over President Obama's health care proposals to the debate over gay rights in 1970s San Francisco.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi told reporters, her voice catching in her throat at her weekly press briefing.
Now she’s going to be a human? I personally can’t see this callous Trotskyite career politician crying over anything but a lost election
Without making an eponymous comparison, Pelosi was referring to the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and city Supervisor Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist immortalized in a recent movie starring Sean Penn. Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted in the case. He committed suicide in 1985.
At the time, gay rights activists and others said the assassinations were the result of the loud and sometimes violent debate over gay rights. Pelosi was chairwoman of the Democratic Party for northern California and friendly with Milk and Moscone.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If the PMRC can link Judas Priest to suicide, the DNC can link anti-gay violence to Free Speech and dissent.
Pelosi said Thursday that while she values free speech, a careful line must be tread between the First Amendment Right and regard for public safety.
Pelosi values Free Speech like Hitler valued the Jews.
"Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe," she added. "But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause."
Right? Why make people take personal responsibility for their own actions? In our new worker bee society, no one does anything of their own free will. If you do something right, it is because you were inspired by President Obama, and if you do something bad, it was because Dick Cheney or Joe Wilson told you too.
Pelosi's response came to a question about whether she is concerned that the political debate and anti-government rhetoric could mimic the era of 1993-1994, when then-President Bill Clinton offered a health care option and as the reporter noted, "Around that time, we also saw acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism."
If Pelosi thinks that the domestic violence in the Clintonista times was brought about by a push for federalized health care, she should watch the tape of the Branch Davidian compound being burned by the FBI, or read about FBI sniper Lon Horuchi shooting Randy Weavers wife, while she held their infant son, at Ruby Ridge.
"I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made," Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message "are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."
So the average American is too mentally unbalanced to understand the difference between dissent and a call for bloody revolution? This is the arrogance of government. In our morally sodden nanny-state, We The People must be taken care of by Uncle Sugar, right? I am sorry, but have things gotten so bad that these ass-ocrats and republi-douches have forgotten who elected them, and who pays their salaries. They are living in The People’s House on our dime. How is it we are not marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks?
Pelosi did not offer examples of rhetoric today that could lead to violence but the House rebuked South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" at Obama last week. The August congressional recess was also dominated by town hall meetings in which voters vigorously stated their opposition to the president's proposals for health care reforms.
I wish Joe Wilson had pulled a Preston Brooks and cracked someone’s head, instead of hooting a 3rd grade response. We are fighting tyranny here, dammit, not rooting for a volleyball team.
The town hall meetings were followed with a rally in Washington, D.C., last weekend that brought tens of thousands of protesters.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday little if any of the rhetoric feeding the health care debate has contained an undercurrent of violence.
"Listen, I was at a tea party in Westchester, Ohio on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend with 18,000 people. I saw no signs or any indication of any kind of violence," he said.
"Americans are saying 'stop.' They're scared to death that the country that they grew up in is not going to be the country that their kids and grandkids get to grow up in," Boehner added. "And so as a result, you're seeing average Americans who've never been involved in the political process taking a more active role in our society and in this debate. And so, you know, I believe it ought to be civilized, but -- but Americans are speaking up and they ought to speak up."
Boehner also chided President Carter, who this week became the highest -profile politician to say the opposition is built on racism because Obama is black.
Jimmy Carter is truly America’s shame. How bad was the Nixon/Ford administration that we felt the need to punish ourselves with 4 years of him?
"I reject this resoundingly," Boehner said. "The outrage that we see in America has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the policies that (Obama) is promoting."
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave at what our country has become. Shame on us for letting it get this far. Shame on our elected officials for forgetting their place, and shame on the people for not reminding them.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Now, I know a lot of Republicans. In fact, many of them are assholes.
However this is not caused by the fact that they do not support the overtly Marxist policies of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I am still at a loss as to what vetting process the Obama White House uses to pick these folks, perhaps drawing names out of a hat?
Jones' background was well known and reported on for years in the media, yet the President thought it would be OK to appoint him to a position that held sway over our fair Republic.
Think again, Comrade! If there is one thing that Conservatives in America can do, it's whine over something! Well, at least the whining didn't go to waste. Keep up the good work America and let's take out the trash in Washington, D.C.!!!
From FoxNews- White House green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned in the middle of the Labor Day weekend following persistent controversy over his past remarks and associations.
Jones, who served as an adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, had generated mounting criticism over the past week. He earlier issued back-to-back apologies -- first, for calling Republicans "assholes" during a videotaped address earlier in the year, and second for signing a petition in 2004 supporting the "9/11 truther" movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The latter development, which came on top of several others, was perhaps the most devastating and led to calls for his resignation.
Jones stepped down late Saturday.
In a sharply worded statement, Jones said the controversy had become an unceasing distraction and assailed his critics.
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," Jones said.
He said he had been "inundated" with calls from supporters urging him to "stay and fight."
"But I came here to fight for others, not for myself," he said. "I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."
Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the council Jones had been advising, said in a statement that she accepted the resignation, which was effective immediately, and called him a "strong voice for creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources."
The White House had stayed relatively quiet about Jones as the controversy developed, leading to speculation that he was on the way out.
Asked about Jones Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said only that he "continues to work in the administration."
Jones is considered a rising star in environmental circles. He wrote the New York Times bestseller "The Green Collar Economy" and has co-founded and worked with several groups dedicated to helping low-income and minority communities -- often through green jobs and better environmental policy. He got his start as a San Francisco-area activist.
But critics raised questions about his fitness for a White House-level office, pointing to his radical activities a decade ago as well as more recent controversial stances.
Jones was an self-described "communist" during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies. His comments, even in recent years, were often racially charged. He's blamed "white polluters and white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities. In 2005, he drew a distinction between white and black youths involved in shooting incidents by referencing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre.
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never," Jones said. "They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them!" he said. "Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."
But such statements did not draw widespread attention until after a February video surfaced showing him calling Republicans "assholes" during an address in Berkeley, Calif. Jones apologized, but faced down his past again when it was discovered that he signed a 2004 statement calling on then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
Jones afterward issued a blanket apology for his past statements and said the petition does not reflect his views. An aide said Jones didn't carefully review the petition at the time.
But that claim was swiftly disputed by 911Truth.org. "He did agree with that statement and he did sign on to it," 911Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger told FOX News in a telephone interview from St. Louis on Friday. Berger said the group's "original board members individually confirmed all signatories that had signed on to the statement."
The calls for resignation mounted.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., became the first lawmaker to call on Jones to resign, issuing a press release calling for a moratorium on the hiring of additional "czars" until the vetting process in Jones' case could be properly investigated.
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., demanded that the Senate Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee conduct hearings to probe Jones' behavior and "reassure the American people that their government is safe from his divisive, incendiary and ultimately counterproductive sentiments."
Thursday, September 3, 2009
If I don't support Federally controlled and mandated Healthcare Reform, it is because I am biased and prejudiced against a black President.
Wow, I had no idea. Thanks, Charlie, for opening my lily white eyes to my personal racism.
Rep. Rangel is of course, dead wrong, about the feelings of Americans. His grasp of the groundswell of opposition to our government chronically overstepping it's bounds is simplistic, dismissive and incorrect. Of course there is racism in America. Of course there are people who hate President Obama because of the color of his skin. But, in truth, America has seen a new color since January.
And that color is RED. Red, as in Communism and Socialism. Red as in Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin. Red as in social engineering and government ownership of private industry. Americans are mad as hell about seeing red. Charles Rangel gets props from me for his service to our country, in the Korean War and in Congress, but RipperBravo6 gives him a big thumbs down for not looking past his own personal biases and understanding that Americans are angry and scared about what socialism as Federal policy is doing to their country.
First it was Gov. Paterson. Now the dean of New York's congressional delegation has played the race card -- and just as the governor did, he's using President Obama to do it, the New York Post reported.
Rep. Charles Rangel said Tuesday that "bias" and "prejudice" toward Obama are fueling opposition to health-care reform.
Those incendiary comments came on the heels of Paterson's controversial comments about race that also mentioned the nation's first black president.
"Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, 'How did this happen?' " Rangel (D-Manhattan) said Tuesday.
Speaking at a health-care forum in Washington Heights, Rangel said that when critics complain that Obama is "trying to interfere" with their lives by pushing for health-care reform, "then you know there's just a misunderstanding, a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling."
"We're going to have to move forward notwithstanding that," said Rangel, the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a chief health-care negotiator.
Rangel then likened the battle over health-care expansion for the uninsured to the fight for civil rights.
"Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can't we get what God has given us? That is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not count the votes. Just do the right thing," he said.
And I meant what I said about Rangel being dirty. Here is what that bastion of truth, Wikipedia had to say:
On September 24, 2008, the House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into Rangel's alleged failure to report thousands of dollars in rental income or pay taxes on his beachfront villa in the posh resort in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, allegedly living in multiple rent-subsidized apartments in New York City while claiming his Washington, D.C. home as his primary residence for tax purposes, alleged use of congressional stationery to solicit donors for a public policy institute in his name at City College, and other alleged questionable activities.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
From FoxNews: Van Jones, the Obama administration's "green jobs" adviser, told a group of listeners earlier in the year that the reason Republicans are stonewalling the president is because they're "assholes."
Jones' remarks were recorded in a video from February that was posted to YouTube.
He made the remark during an energy lecture in Berkeley, Calif., after a woman in the audience asked him why President Obama and congressional Democrats were having trouble moving legislation -- even though Republicans, with a smaller majority, didn't have as much trouble earlier in the Bush administration.
"Well, the answer to that is, they're assholes," Jones said, to uproarious laughter. "That's a technical, political science term."
The questioner responded, "I was afraid that that was the answer."
"Now, I will say this. I can be an asshole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity," he said.
From Wikipedia: Early activism
In 1992, while still a law student at Yale, Jones participated as a volunteer legal monitor for a protest of the Rodney King verdict in San Francisco. He and many other participants in the protest were arrested. The district attorney later dropped the charges against Jones. The arrested protesters, including Jones, won a small legal settlement. Jones later said that "the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization." His outrage over the verdict radicalized him: Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist" before the King verdict was announced. By August of that year, he said, "I was a communist." Former employer Eva Paterson counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways. "In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions," Paterson says. Jones's activism was also spurred on by witnessing racial inequality in New Haven: “I was seeing kids at Yale do drugs and talk about it openly, and have nothing happen to them or, if anything, get sent to rehab...And then I was seeing kids three blocks away, in the housing projects, doing the same drugs, in smaller amounts, go to prison.”
When he graduated law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead. He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism. While with STORM, Jones actively began protesting police brutality.
Thank you American’s Higher Education system. Breeding ground of the Red Menace. McCarthy was wrong to target Hollywood, he should have hit the Ivy League instead.
Well, fellow Americans, is that what we are now reduced to? Because we dissent, because we don’t proscribe to Marxism, because we want moral government, fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, we are assholes?
I for one am proud to be an asshole. I join a long line of assholes including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Sam Adams and John Hancock, who King George of England once referred to as “that bunch of Colonial assholes”.
What an asshole.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."
"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."
NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.
"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."
Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.
"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."
Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform.
"I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed."
Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot.
"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Fear not fellow travelers, RipperBravo6 has not forsaken you. He has merely taken a small hiatus to work on other projects. Our country is changing, and not for the better, and RB6 wants to talk about it. Look forward to more posts in the upcoming weeks.
And remember the lesson the Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson taught us:
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Perfect. Just freakin’ perfect. Once again, great news from our nation’s capitol, delivered by the “brains” of the Obama administration, VP Joe Biden.
However, there is one area that I can almost agreed with our meddling, and that is in the restraint we force upon the state of Israel. Don’t get me wrong, I totally support Israels right to defend herself. I get a little misty-eyed thinking about her brave soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting off despotic Arab invaders in 1948, 1967 and 1973. The Arab nations that have attacked Israel have gotten what they deserved.
Now, the current administration is saying “Go ahead, do what you want, we could care less”. We have too much to risk to allow Israel to attack Iran unprovoked. Iran would surely use their limited nuclear arsenal to first destroy Israel, then try and find a way to export that nuclear material to a group who would be willing and able to strike inside the US.
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden seemed to give Israel a green light for military action to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, saying the U.S. "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."
Israel considers Iran its most dangerous adversary and is wary of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just won a disputed re-election. He repeatedly has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and contends the Holocaust is a "myth."
Israel and the U.S. accuse Iran of seeking to develop weapons under the cover of a nuclear power program. Iran denies that.
"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday.
"Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed," Biden said.
The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it prefers to see Iran's nuclear program stopped through diplomacy but has not ruled out a military strike.
"If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," Biden said.
Asked about Biden's comments, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday the U.S. position on Iran and a military strike involves a "political decision."
"I have been, for some time, concerned about any strike on Iran. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself but unintended consequences of a strike like that," Mullen said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"At the same time, I'm one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that is very destabilizing," he said.
While most experts are in agreement that there's a good chance Iran could have a usable nuclear bomb sometime during his presidency, President Barack Obama told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday, "I'm not reconciled with that."
A nuclear-armed Iran, Obama said, probably would lead to an arms race in the volatile Mideast and that would be "a recipe for potential disaster." He said opposing a nuclear weapons capacity for Iran was more than just "a U.S. position" and that "the biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies, like Israel or its neighbors."
Israel is also concerned about Iran's close support for two of its most committed enemies, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.
Obama said in May, after his first meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, that the Iranians had until year's end to get serious about international talks on curbing their nuclear ambitions. "We're not going to have talks forever," he said.
But Obama sees movement on Israeli-Palestinian peace as key to building a moderate Arab coalition against Iran, while Netanyahu says dealing with the Iranian threat must take precedence over peacemaking with the Palestinians.
Most experts believe that wiping out the Iranian nuclear program is beyond the ability of Israel's military. In 1982 the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in a lightning strike. But Iran's facilities are scattered around the country, some of them underground.
Biden was asked in the interview that if the Israelis decide they need to try to take out Iran's nuclear program, would the U.S. stand in the way militarily?
"We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do," the vice president replied. "Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
It is with a heavy heart that I bid farewell to one of Hollywoods true class acts, Ed McMahon, who passed away today at the age of 86. Ed was best known as Johnny Carson's sidekick on The Tonight Show, but not many folks know he was a decorated Marine pilot in WW2, and left showbiz temporarily to fly spotter planes in Korea. Ed, you will be missed.
Ed McMahon, the loyal "Tonight Show" sidekick who bolstered boss Johnny Carson with guffaws and later carved out his own niche as the host of "Star Search," has died at a Los Angeles hospital. He was 86.
According to his publicist Howard Bragman, the former "Tonight Show" announcer passed away at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in California this morning.
Earlier this year, McMahon was in and out of the hospital for pneumonia and other medical issues, according to sources close to him.
While Bragman did not give a cause of death, he said McMahon had "a multitude of health problems the last few months."
McMahon had bone cancer, among other illnesses, according to a person close to the entertainer. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
Best known for his famous catchphrase "Heeeeeere's Johnny," said every night when Johnny Carson took the stage, McMahon spent three decades as the legendary comedian's sidekick.
McMahon and Carson had worked together for nearly five years on the game show "Who Do You Trust?" when Carson took over NBC's late-night show from Jack Paar in October 1962. McMahon played second banana on "Tonight" until Carson retired in 1992.
"You can't imagine hooking up with a guy like Carson," McMahon said an interview with The Associated Press in 1993. "There's the old phrase, hook your wagon to a star. I hitched my wagon to a great star."
McMahon, who never failed to laugh at his Carson's quips, kept his supporting role in perspective.
"It's like a pitcher who has a favorite catcher," he said. "The pitcher gets a little help from the catcher, but the pitcher's got to throw the ball. Well, Johnny Carson had to throw the ball, but I could give him a little help."
The highlight for McMahon came just after the monologue, when he and Carson would chat before the guests took the stage.
"We would just have a free-for-all," he told the AP. "Now to sit there, with one of the brightest, most well-read men I've ever met, the funniest, and just to hold your own in that conversation. ... I loved that."
When Carson died in 2005, McMahon said he was "like a brother to me" and recalled bantering with him on the phone a few months earlier.
"We could have gone on (television) that night and done a 'Carnac' skit. We were that crisp and hot."
His medical and financial problems kept him in the headlines in his last years. It was reported in June 2008 that he was facing possible foreclosure on his Beverly Hills home.
By year's end, a deal was worked out allowing him to stay in his home, but legal action involving other alleged debts continued.
Among those who had stepped up with offers of help was Donald Trump.
"When I was at the Wharton School of Business I'd watch him every night," Trump told the Los Angeles Times in August. "How could this happen?"
McMahon even spoofed his own problems with a spot that aired during the 2009 Super Bowl promoting a cash-for-gold business. Pairing up with rap artist MC Hammer, he explained how easy it is to turn gold items into cash, jokingly saying "Goodbye, old friend" to a gold toilet and rolling out a convincing "H-e-e-e-e-e-ere's money!"
Born Edward Leo Peter McMahon Jr. on March 6, 1923, in Detroit, McMahon grew up in Lowell, Mass. He got his start on television playing a circus clown on the 1950-51 variety series "Big Top." But the World War II Marine veteran interrupted his career to serve as a fighter pilot in Korea.
He joined "Who Do You Trust? in 1958, its second year, the start of his long association with Carson. It was a partnership that outlasted their multiple marriages, which provided regular on-air fodder for jokes.
While Carson built his career around "Tonight" and withdrew from the limelight after his retirement, McMahon took a different path. He was host of several shows over the years, including "The Kraft Music Hall" (1968) and the amateur talent contest "Star Search."
He was a longtime co-host of the Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon, a Labor Day weekend institution, and was co-host with Dick Clark of "TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes."
McMahon and Clark also teamed up as pitchmen for American Family Publishers' sweepstakes, with their faces a familiar sight on contest entry forms and in TV commercials. McMahon was known for his ongoing commercials for Budweiser as well.
He had supporting roles in several movies, including "Fun with Dick and Jane" (1977) and "Just Write" (1997). He took on his first regular TV series job in the 1997 WB sitcom "The Tom Show" with Tom Arnold.
McMahon married his third wife, advertising executive Pam Hurn in 1992, and adopted her son. McMahon and his second wife, Victoria Valentine, had an adopted daughter, and McMahon and first wife Alyce Ferrill had four children.
One son, Michael Edward McMahon, who worked as a counselor for abused children, died of cancer in 1995 at 44.
Ed McMahon released his autobiography, "For Laughing Out Loud: My Life and Good Times," in 1998. In it, he recounts the birth of "Tonight."
"Let's just go down there and entertain the hell out of them," Carson told him before the first show. Wrote McMahon: "That was the only advice I ever got from him."
In 1993, he recalled his first meeting with Carson after they left "Tonight."
"The first thing he said was, 'I really miss you. You know, it was fun, wasn't it?"' McMahon recalled. "I said, 'It was great.' And it was. It was just great."
Besides his wife, McMahon is survived by children Claudia, Katherine, Linda, Jeffrey and Lex.
Bragman said no funeral arrangements have been made.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Monday, June 8, 2009
A farmers son,
For months we trained,
To land in England,
Be still my heart,
When, o' when,
Til weather broke,
We trained and trained,
That fateful morning,
We shouldered packs,
Then crossed The Channel,
A Big Red One,
The German guns,
The things I saw,
By grace of God,
I turned my back,
Too many good friends,