Freedom of BLEEP

In his classic fear-mongering way, Obama issued a warning to Congress and the American people about health care reform. “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done.” Considering this is only Obama’s first year as President, what exactly is he planning on doing for the next three? I guess his re-election campaign awaits!

It has become clear that Obama, who continually promised transparency in government, is now acting as swiftly and secretively as possible to completely uproot the foundations of our society. Silencing dissenters (of whom there aren’t many, considering the media love-affair with him) has become more difficult, so Obama’s strategy is to hastily push his agenda so there can be no true debate of the issues. Change must happen now – OR ELSE!

A recap of the many thoughtless decisions that Obama has made or is currently pushing, while threatening opponents, causes some concern.

The Stimulus Bill

No one could possibly forget the message that Obama drove home when trying to push this porky legistlation through Congress. “We’re in a crisis,” “it’s now or never,” “we may never come out of this if we don’t pass legislation NOW!” “The sky is falling!!!” Okay, the last one wasn’t him, but you get the point. Has anyone reaped any significant benefits from this bill yet? Since most of the spending won’t take place this year and/or isn’t clearly stimulative, one must ask herself/himself - why was it so important to pass this when not a single legislator read the bill?? Answer: Because if anyone had read it, there may have been a genuine debate about whether tattoo removal and digital television are necessary to bring this country out of the recession.

Closing Gitmo

Following through on a campaign promise, Obama announced that he was closing Guantanamo Bay. He asked Congress for $80 million to aid in this endeavor, which they promptly rejected. Obama has no realistic plan in place to deal with the many dangerous terrorists still housed at the prison, other than sending them to other countries (who don’t want them) and releasing them into the United States judicial system (with its constitutional guarantees and advantageous evidentiary procedures).  Maybe, just maybe, a more thoughtful examination of this dire situation is warranted before Congress dishes out more taxpayer money.

The Supremes

When Obama announced Sotomayor as his nominee for the high court, he beseeched Congress to confirm her “as swiftly as possible.” Let there be no debate, let there be no inquiry into her fitness to be a neutral arbiter. As questions began to surface and a debate began about particularly alarming statements uttered by Sotomayor, Press Secretary Gibbs delivered a warning from our President - be “exceedingly careful” when criticizing the nominee.  I guess we better watch our words, since the First Amendment won’t protect us once Sotomayor is confirmed.

Cap-and-Trade

Congress is now trying to push through legislation that will limit the amount of carbon dioxide that certain industries may emit. Unbeknownst to many, this bill will impose enormous costs on businesses, which in turn will pass those costs onto the consumer. Energy costs are set to skyrocket, while American industry is crippled, and this is all in the name of a phenomenon that is still being debated by the scientific community (although Al Gore doesn’t want you to know that).

Now, Obama is begging the Democrats to force another change on the America people, without allowing debate or transparency.  He will not release any details, saying the White House is leaving it up to Congress to design the health care model.  I guess this way, he can throw a few more friends and colleagues under the bus when everything falls apart.

How does a judge that has favored discriminatory practices and has ruled against freedom of speech become nominated for the Supreme Court? Sixty percent of her decisions that came before the high court have been reversed. Her record merits close scrutiny, but first let’s search for a trace of logic behind Obama’s nomination. (Hint: We won’t find any.)

While introducing Sotomayor as his nominee for the Supreme Court, President Obama quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, saying “[t]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” The aphorism was taken out of context and does not support the President’s endorsement of legislating from the bench. Perhaps Obama should have considered this adage by Holmes:

“Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts.”

The views of Holmes and Sotomayor, at least with respect to the role that a judge should play, are diametrically opposed to one another. Holmes abided by the written law, and applied it accordingly no matter how repugnant he found it to be. However, Sotomayor stated in her address yesterday that she strives to “never forget the real world consequences” of her decisions. Maybe Sotomayor should have been a legislator instead.

Sotomayor has spoken at length about her pride in being Hispanic, and openly admits that this skews her decision making. “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” Sotomayor wrote that these attributes most definitely “affect the facts that judges choose to see.” This is a bold statement by someone who has taken an oath to uphold our Constitution - but instead decides cases based on her whims and fancies, her political ideology, and outright favoritism for certain adversarial parties. A look at her judicial record shows a dangerous and disrespectful thumbing of her nose at the rule of law.

Against Equal Rights
In her most publicized case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled against a group of white firefighters who were denied promotions after passing the qualifications exam. The first time the test was administered, none of the black firefighters passed. The city declared the results invalid and had everyone take the exam again. And again, none of the black firefighters passed so the city decided to throw out the results and not promote anyone. The firefighters sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause, but the city argued that it was just trying to avoid being sued by minorities (interestingly, the City has not administered another test or promoted anyone in 5 years). The Second Circuit rejected the firefighter’s claims, essentially draining the Equal Protection Clause of all its meaning. Apparently, not all people are protected under the Constitution according to Sotomayor. Even fellow Clinton appointee, Judge Jose Cabranes wrote a scathing dissent, observing that “the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.”

Against Freedom of Speech
In August 2007, Sotomayor ruled against freedom of speech. Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for student government after she posted something on her blog that criticized the superintendent and other officials. Sotomayor declared that the student was a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” because she didn’t succumb to mind-control attempts made by the public school system.

Soft on Criminals
In 2006, Sotomayor ruled that convicted felons should have the right to vote. In 2003, she ruled that prisoners should be entitled to holiday feasts. In 1993, she criticized the five-year mandatory sentence for drug dealers, calling it an “abomination” that they do not deserve. In 1998, she jeopardized prison security by lifting the ban on beads that guards claimed were being used as gang symbols.

And after all of these absurd rulings, Obama has nominated Sotomayor to become a Supreme Court Justice. Wake up, America. This is your slap in the face.

Obama has announced his pick for the Supreme Court after “deep reflection and careful deliberation.” Sonia Sotomayer is set to become the first Hispanic to sit on the bench and only the third female justice, after O’Connor and Ginsburg. While diversity on the bench is a noble objective, Obama is taking a huge risk in nominating one of the most liberal activist judges on his short list.

During his announcement, Obama stated his requirements for a nominee, including a “rigorous intellect and mastery of the law” and more importantly “a recognition of the limits of the judicial role,” pointing out that judges must interpret, not create, law. Considering the latter, it is surprising that he would even consider Sotomayer in light of many damning statements she has made in connection with this principle.

Sotomayor made a huge flub by admitting that “the court of appeals is where policy is made.” After realizing that this statement could come back to bite her in her derriere, she inarticulately tried to backtrack. By now, most of you have already seen this, but just in case:

For those of you who don’t understand why this statement is such a huge deal, see the United States Constitution. There are specific powers delegated to each branch of our federal government. Article I governs the Legislative Branch, and gives Congress the power to “make all Laws.” There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Court the power to make law or social policy when they disagree with Congress.  Similarly, the Court cannot interpret the Constitution in a way that advances their own political ideology. That is why the Founding Fathers included an amendment process in the Constitution to account for any imperfections or holes in the document. However, some justices feel that it is their job to rewrite the Constitution to their liking – and this is exactly what Sotomayor’s record indicates that she will attempt to do.

Obama continued to outline his requirements in his address, commenting that mastery of the laws and respect for judicial limits are alone insufficient – we need something more in a nominee –“experience.”  But the “experience” that he is talking about is not appellate court experience, but experience that allows a justice to “empathize” with others. Remember the comment he made during his campaign:

[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

According to Obama, justice is apparently NOT blind. This comment is in perfect alignment with the views of Sotomayor, who has previously said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This statement is a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers. They envisioned the Court as a neutral arbitrator, similar to a referee in a sports game. Would you want a referee to administer the rules of the game based on which team they like more? Maybe a team hasn’t had a chance to win the Super Bowl, while their opponent has won it 7 times - so they bend the rules a little to stick it to the successful team.  Is this a fair application of the rules?  Even more important, the Court is bound by precedent, which creates a stable and predictable judicial system. However, when we allow judges to take into consideration their own prejudices and political ideology, the outcome does not reflect an even-handed application of the law and instead reflects the bias of whichever judge you happen to appear before.

Obama concluded that “I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan manner, confirming her as swiftly as possible.” In the wake of even more swift and reckless action by Congress in passing sweeping and destructive legislation without contemplation (i.e. without even reading bills before voting), it would be a disservice to the American people to confirm a justice having life tenure on our highest court without a rigorous and searching inquiry into their judicial philosophy and fitness to be a impartial arbiter.

More on Sotomayer’s judicial record and other disconcerting information later…

For years, liberals have characterized pro-life individuals as fringe “religious nutjobs.” According to the latest Gallop poll, these nutjobs now constitute the majority of Americans.

If this many Americans are pro-life, why are tax dollars being used to fund abortions? It’s equally concerning that liberals consistently suggest their opposition must be crazy. Why do they fear intellectual discourse? In reality, the pro-life movement has never been a fringe group of extremists.

Whether it’s abortion or any other issue, know that you are not alone in your beliefs. Instead of using logical arguments, liberals will try to alienate you by saying you are an extremist. Just remember that liberals lie.

Nancy Pelosi announced today that she will bring a sweeping health care reform bill to the House floor by the end of July. And if Americans want to continue to enjoy the highest quality health care in the world, they need to speak up and tell the government to stay out of it! While a great number of Americans complain about the cost of health insurance today, they will soon be complaining about the lack of access and declining quality of health care if the Democrats are able to push their legislation through.

In the absence of checks and balances, Democrats will misbehave.

Obama said “Our health care system is broken. We are not going to rest until we’ve delivered the kind of health care reform that’s going to bring down costs for families, improve quality, affordability, accessibility for all Americans.” He is clearly out of his mind if he honestly believes that a universal, government-controlled health care system is the solution. The heavy hand of the government may artificially bring costs down, but it will destroy the quality, limit accessibility, and control the treatment options of all Americans. And Obama will rob us blind to cover the cost, asking Americans to sacrifice their paychecks for a “greater good.” Considering the United States is one of the unhealthiest countries in the world, it’s going to take a lot of sacrifices to get those who’ve made chronically unhealthy lifestyles choices nursed back to health. When someone else is picking up their doctor’s bill, where’s the incentive to make the right choices?

One can look to any country with socialized medicine and find a host of serious problems, but let’s examine our majority parties’ favorites: Canada and England! In Canada, terminally ill patients are waitlisted for weeks to get into a specialist, and even longer afterward to get treatment. Contributing to this massive problem is the mass exodus of doctors from the country. To deal with this flight, Canada is replacing doctors with nurses, who obviously haven’t been through the rigors of medical school. Talk about some quality health care!

In England, the picture is even bleaker. Even former Prime Minister Tony Blair voiced his concern that the government just cannot provide adequate health care to all citizens, especially with the poor lifestyle choices of many citizens. He put it correctly when saying “individual actions impose collective costs.” This is precisely the problem of socialized medicine, and socialism in general. Even more problematic is the rationing of treatments, where patients with less favorable prognoses are kept on waiting lists until they die from their ailments.

Simple economic principles show that when prices of goods are artificially pushed down, the demand skyrockets, and shortages result. Remember what happened when Oprah gave away coupons for free chicken last week?? Now imagine every person in America had free coupons for medical care.

Moreover, medical innovation declines because companies can’t recoup their research and development costs. This is when the government steps in, further increases taxes, and creates their own research agency to develop limited “cost effective” treatments that may not benefit all patients. With never-ending lines and poor/limited options, these liberal policies beg the question: what good is free health insurance when there’s no health care? Government intervention is a slippery slope, and our country is sliding into a gigantic disaster.

Obama’s agenda is clearly to thrust the government further into every facet of our lives, so that we become more and more dependent upon it. It’s amazing that Democrats don’t feel insulted, since the party they advocate is convinced that Americans are mentally-challenged lemmings who can’t take care of themselves. After this last election, I’m beginning to believe that a majority of them are.

An Opinion Piece by Lenny the Liberal

The recent outbreak of sword fights across America should have you concerned. We need to act now to keep our streets safe from sword violence and ninjas. After we have banned guns and swords, murderous criminals will only be able to kill people with explosives. (Experts say that laws should effectively deter murderers from illegally using guns and swords.)

What Conservatives don’t want you to know about swords:

Over 1 million people were killed by swords, from 1147 AD to 1192 AD alone.

When guns have been banned, swords will become the second most common murder weapon (after guns).

Over 7,000 Asians are hospitalized each year due to sword related accidents.

Swords are the leading cause of Shopping Channel injuries.

This could be you. Sign the petition to ban swords and protect your family from ninjas.

Click here to sign the petition.

Remember when President Obama promised the stimulus package would have an immediate effect? Well, the Associated Press reports that the counties hurting the most from job losses are actually getting the least immediate aid from the allocated funding. It’s hard to understand how hundreds of earmarks were considered more important than actually stimulating the economy.

Meanwhile, the budgeted deficit continues to grow. Now the White House is projecting a $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009 - four times the 2008 deficit.

The Obama Administration’s analysis also assumes our economy will be growing at a rate of 3.5 percent by the end of the year. The more realistic report by the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the gross domestic product will actually decline 3 percent this year, and increase only 2.9 percent next year.

Nevermind that, the Obama Administration is too busy explaining how nothing is ever their fault. But we already know that isn’t true.

The White House has also been busy publicizing that they have created 20,000 new jobs in the Pentagon. What they didn’t tell you is that they actually destroyed 11,000 private sector jobs in the process. Reuters reports:

“The remaining 11,000 new hires would come from the conversion to federal civilian slots of jobs that had been outsourced to contractors.”

Another problem is that many of the jobs created by the government are only temporary. 60,000 jobs were created for the 2010 census. In about a year these people will be jobless again, and economic data suggests unemployment will still be a huge problem at that time. But hey, that’s alright. After these workers are done skewing the census data, they’ll probably just go back to ACORN and cast votes for their new imaginary citizens.

About $4 billion of the stimulus package will be handed out to organizations like ACORN. This group of henchmen for the Democratic Party get in trouble almost every election for voter fraud. And they’ve been at it again.

In Las Vegas, ACORN is being charged on 26 counts of voter fraud and 13 counts for compensating those registering voters. And these are directors being charged, not irresponsible underlings that the organization can sweep under the rug.

From coast to coast, ACORN has been creating fraudulent registrations and submitting fraudulent votes. How can they eligible for stimulus money (that was obviously intended for them)?

Simply because there is no accountability. Who is in charge of oversight for stimulus spending? Why, you are, of course! How are you supposed to do this? You can’t!

“The government website dedicated to the spending won’t have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said.” Isn’t the government great?

The best part is that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board blames the delay on their server - which doesn’t have enough data storage capacity. Is this brand new government department using a computer from the 80’s? A single gigabyte can easily store several hundred thousand pages of text. I suppose the next year will be spent migrating small sections of data to the new server using a 3.5 floppy disk.

Or perhaps more likely, the Transparency Board will spend the next year doing exactly what they were told to do. Nothing! So much for President Obama’s promise to scrutinize “every dime” of how the $787 billion stimulus package is spent.

Democrats promise to serve the people through the expansion of government. In reality, these politicians only support big government to increase their wealth and power. This week’s corrupt politician is Congressman John Murtha.

As the head of the Defense Committee, Congressman Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. How does he distribute funding? Seemingly, it all depends on which contractor gives him the most money.

Murtha is granting $8 million to Argon ST. The CEO donated the maximum amount allowed by law toward Murtha’s last campaign. Murtha is directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max to his campaign. CBS News reports, “10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.”

Who isn’t getting earmarks? One defense contractor was set to receive $1 million from Murtha. He was told in order to get the money, he should “consider opening an office” in Murtha’s hometown. Officials distributing the money also chided the contractor for not giving “enough campaign contributions to Murtha,” and for not making “a showing at Murtha’s annual defense contractor fair.” The defense contractor didn’t care to play that game… And they didn’t get the funds.

Murtha has not commented on quid pro quo suspicions, but he did recently tell his local newspaper that he’s only trying to bring home the bacon.

Rock on!

Murtha isn’t the only one bringing home the bacon. Murtech, his nephew’s company also gets about $1.4 million every year from the Pentagon (without competitive bidding). Conveniently, everything Murtech does for the government is classified.

Don’t forget the John Murtha Airport he had built in his tiny hometown with $180 million of tax payer money (that also received $30 million in military upgrades which have never been used).

Come see our airport!

Speaking of corrupt liberals…

You may have noticed that this site was down for a few hours earlier today. The database was corrupted by what was most definitely a malicious attack.

Note to the hacker: Your ability to hack an open source framework with publicly known vulnerabilities is most impressive. But I have automated backups running so you wasted a lot more time than I did.

You may have noticed that the liberals are blaming all their problems on Republicans these days. And now they have even gone so far as to blame cancer on the GOP. Democrat convert Arlen Specter suggested that Jack Kemp (Bob Dole’s running mate) would still be alive if the Republicans had pursued a more moderate agenda.

I’m scratching my head on this one. Does this moron really think the Republican agenda killed Jack Kemp? Or is Arlen Sphincter just spewing more BS?

Under President Clinton, annual NCI funding rose from about $2 billion to $3 billion by the end of his second term. Under President Bush, that increased to about $4.6 billion in fiscal 2003, and then stayed at between $4.7 and $4.8 billion in subsequent years. US funding for cancer research has massively outweighed funding from the EU and funding for other institutions has risen dramatically as well.

On the other hand, we see that increases in funding actually leveled out when Democrats took control of Congress in 2006:

Annual Percentage Increases

NIH and NCI Funding Increase Percentages

What else can the Democrats say to discredit themselves? They’ll probably be blaming swine flu on Republicans next. Oh wait, they already tried that. (In reality, flu vaccines stockpiled by the Bush Administration have prevented a large scale pandemic.) The lies being propagated by Democratic Party are really getting out of hand…