Conservatism is Calling

Dread Pirate Roberts

Just a brief note on the horrible, unconstitutional, fantastical, ridiculous decision by Chief Justice John Roberts regarding Obamacare, a.k.a. Obama's Health Care Destruction Act.

In his decision, Justice Roberts explains why the law is unconstitutional. He then proceeds to decide in favor if its constitutionality. Roberts approved the law because if it were a tax, he claims it would have been constitutional. There are two problems with that absurd assertion. First, Obamacare's tyrannical mandate is obviously not a tax. Second, if it were a tax, it would still be unconstitutional. Congress's authority to tax is limited and specific and does not include taxation as punishment. Has the finding of the Dread Pirate Roberts opened the door to the several States taxing citizens for not playing the lottery? It is essentially the same.

"Constitutional"? You keep using that word...

Flipper!

This was too good to pass up.

Hat tip: Legal Insurrection

Statist Theologians

When arguing against pro-life Christians, so-called "Liberals" warn against the outrage of Theocracy. They confess that only Christians care about human lives other than their own.

When arguing against displaying the Ten Commandments in public places and when arguing against the objections of conscientious parents to the sexualization of their children through so-called "Sex Education" classes, so-called "Liberals" become self-righteous advocates for their "separation of Church and State". They confess the moral values they oppose are only found in Christianity.

However, so-called "Liberals" attempt to use the Bible in order to persuade Christians to support the Statist lure of so-called "welfare programs", thereby confessing their acceptance of Theocracy.

Democrats' Anti-American Foreign Policy

Democrats: Emboldening America's Enemies and Terrifying Her Allies Since 1976

[T]he moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, "We hear your voices."

He can hear their voices? He couldn't hear the voices of the tea partiers, and they were protesting on the streets of Washington, D.C.

But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo, why doesn't he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we're on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)
[...]
For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests.

Bipartisan Revolt Against Obama's Statism

Equality in education is a civil rights issue...therefore, the Democrats are reliably against it.

Boehner Set to Revive Successful DC Voucher Program that Democrats Eliminated

[T]he Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools. The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.
GOP House Speaker Boehner and Senator Lieberman put out this video statement:


[...]
this is going to be a tricky issue for Obama and the Democrats–one that will further define the Democrats as bought-off, public-sector union hacks and self-serving politicians who continually oppress and exploit others for their own political gain. Some of you may think, yeah, those Republicans, but I will remind you–it was the Republicans who originally started the DC scholarship program and the Democrats (and a few of the usual RINOs) who filibustered it. Kinda like the 1964 Civil Rights Act–Democrats filibustered that one, too. Look it up.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Child Protective Services is the New Gestapo

Blogger accused of child neglect and mental abuse

When my child got home, I got a bigger shock! My child told me, child services had come to her school that day and interviewed her!
[...]
My child said, these are the questions they asked " Does your mother have SOLAR PANELS? Where Exactly does your mother take you camping? Where exactly have you gone hiking? Do you hike and then camp? Does anyone else go with you camping? What do you do when you go camping? Does your mother have alternative energy? Does your mother have stored food? Does your mother have any guns? Does your mother saying anything about "The end of the world"? What kind of remodeling has your mother done to your home? Do you have a "safe room", like a bomb shelter in your home?

***EDIT***12/5/10 9:20am est - I forgot to include another question, they asked my child: IF your mother takes you to church and exactly which church do you go to? They did not ask ME that question when I was interviewed - BUT they did ask the father that question in if he knew, if I take my child to church or not. I was surprised at this question, I thought there was a separation of Church and State and did not know those type questions were allowed. - END OF EDIT***

My child also said she told child services, her father does not live with me and there was shared custody and that included being at my house for one week and then her father's house for one week. So my child TOLD Child services the father and I did not live together! I was upset, as the woman then lied to me on the phone saying "She did not know the father didn't live here".
[...]
They were at my house for about one hour and after they left, I called my child's father, to let him know they were on their way.

After a few hours, my child's father called me and said "they had been at his house for 2 HOURS and the whole time, they were grilling them about ME"! He said, they asked him all kinds of things about my camping, and if HE knew where we went and what we did while camping! He also said "they said they were concerned, since I did not let them see the downstairs of my house". He said they asked him, if he knew what my blog was about and did he read it? He told them "mainly financial stuff and the diseases from last winter and if they were so worried about it, they could get on the internet and read it themselves".
[...]
Now here are my questions about this whole ordeal.............. and the accusations of Mental abuse and Neglect.........................

How does if I have Solar panels have anything to do with of those two accusations?

How does Where we go Camping have anything to do with those two accusations?

How does where we go hiking have anything to do with those two accusations?

How does what we do when we go camping have anything to do with those two accusations?

How does Who has ever gone camping with us, have anything to do with those two accusations?

How does if I have any stored food, have anything to do with those two accusations?

How does if I have an alternative heat source have anything to do with those two accusations?

I would like to know How doing Renovations on my house has anything to do with those two accusations?

How does what I write on my blog, have anything to do with those accusations?
[...]
I am now of the opinion, another branch of the government, possibly sent Child Services to my home.
[...]
I was fearful of revealing this information, in case child services could come back on me for it. But Dave Hodges explained "People NEED To know what is Happening" and "the more exposure to it, the less they can get you"!
[...]
So...... now the question is, are others who have been public about their opinions on varied subjects, have had the government check on them? Has child services been used in other cases where they asked bizarre questions, compared to abuse questions?
[...]
***Note*** I have talked to Dave Hodges yet again today, he feels after talking to someone else who is an expert in regards to child services, is that I was being profiled and assessed in what kind of "threat" I may be for homeland security.
[...]
***UPDATE 12/5/10 - 10:50am est - I realized last night, as I continued thinking about this CPS ordeal and still trying to put the pieces together - this CPS interview happened within days of a conference call I had with a couple of Large Class Action Law Firms - regarding "the strategy" and what needed to be done to begin Class Action Foreclosure Fraud Law Suits in all States. I have no idea if this was the catalyst to the CPS allegations. What is also interesting, is we were suppose to have another conference call, the day before this happened - that call did not happen and since the firms have not gotten back to me, yet Class Actions were suppose to begin. This was not information I wanted to release, it may or may not have something to do with this. End of Update**

H/T Verum Serum

Class Warfare Exploded

"In the real world of American democracy, social and economic divisions are between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots. The vast majority of wealthy Americans, as a matter of empirical fact, are first generation wealthy and have created what they possess. In the process of creating wealth for themselves, they have created wealth for hundreds and sometimes thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of others. But to describe the wealthy as wealth earners and wealth creators - that is, to describe them accurately - is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to radical lives, inspires the radicals’ war, and has been the source of the most repressive regimes and the greatest social disasters in the history of mankind." ~David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model

Meet the Liberal Elite!

Brilliant... and thorough!



H/T Babalu

Bureaucratic Tyranny

I pay property taxes to the county in which I live. This is a good thing. The taxes paid by residents are used to provide services, one of which is the use of the county dump sites.

But now we have a problem. Only county residents have paid taxes which provide for the dump. Each county has its own dump(s). Residents of other counties should not be using the dump in my county. For this reason, as well as many others including the orderly management of personnel, land, and waste, we suddenly need to provide for the management of these facilities. And this also has a cost that must be borne by taxpayers.

But as is typical, the policing of the use of the county dump is done preventively rather than punitively. That is, rather than penalize those who misuse the dump, provision is made to prevent the misuse of the dump. In some cases, this approach is appropriate. It may be in this case, in which the goal is to prevent non-county residents from using the dump. The way this is pursued (though not achieved) in my county is through the issuance of decals that can be applied to the vehicle window belonging to county residents and must be displayed when discarding waste at the dump site. Naturally, these decals also cost money.

This approach does not prevent non-county residents from using the dump. Obviously, through a variety of methods, a non-county resident might obtain a decal that will allow him to illegally use the county dump. This is actually a little humorous to me because a much more effective method is so easily available. Any proof of residency like a driver's license could easily be used to authorize use of the county dump. And such a method would save money to the taxpayer and the county.

However, what bureaucrat could conceive of such an elegant solution? Bureaucrats tend to be 'little kings' running their own fiefdoms and enjoying the opportunity to enforce upon the unwashed peasants the rules which they majestically devise. Examples abound, most notably and frighteningly at the Federal level. I won't cite them here. Be on the lookout.

In addition, bureaucrats provide never ending excuses to add tax after tax in order to pay for their endless and typically needless, poorly designed, and inefficiently managed programs. Quite obviously, these endeavors are designed to generate revenue in many cases, not merely to pay for themselves.

As for me, when traveling to the dump I place the decal, still stuck to its original backing, on the dashboard of my vehicle so that it can be seen by the dump attendant. This has always been acceptable. I find repugnant the idea that I should drive around my whole life displaying a decal that I only use a few minutes every other week or so. That's just silly. Also, I sometimes borrow a pickup truck from a family member or a friend, who may or may not be a resident of my county, in order to deliver refuse too large or too numerous to fit in my sedan.

So, as one might expect, the 'little kings' have decided the dump can no longer be used except by professed residents of the county who are driving vehicles with decals actually affixed. I will no longer be permitted to use the dump if I simply temporarily lay the decal on my dash for the very few minutes that I need it. The poor soul who lives across the road from the dump will not be permitted to simply walk across the street with his garbage.

What purpose does this serve? First, additional decals must be purchased for those residents who may use a variety of vehicles to deliver waste to the dump. It might also be assumed by some pencil pusher who lives in the city, has his garbage collected, and never actually uses the dump he oversees that requiring the decals to be affixed might prevent the loan of decals to non-residents. To any rational person with the most rudimentary experience in the real world, such a notion is laughable. But what rational person in touch with real life would aspire to the position of bureaucrat?

Prevention may be preferable to punishment in some cases when the consequences are life-threatening. But it has become the norm in every situation and it offers no exceptions to a sacrifice of our liberty. Most obvious and egregious is the case of our 2nd amendment.

When exposed to any discussion of regulation, certification, licensing, or qualification, consider the legal requirement in question and whether the approach is preventive or punitive. A preventive methodology will nearly always be observed. Then consider to what extent the preventive measures have curtailed your rights. Finally, decide whether the security gained by such prevention is worth the price you pay in the currency of your liberty.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Pamela Gellar Elucidates the Tyrannical Democrat Agenda

The October Surprise Is Coming

The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the "economic collapse." Oh yes, that was a beaut.

The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark.

But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.