Who Said This?
Dec 31, 2009 Political
Who said these things?
- A: Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read ’em their rights.
- B: Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.
The answer to A is Sarah Palin at her acceptance speech in St. Paul.
The answer to B is Barack Obama in March 2009 on 60 Minutes.
So why are we now reading the terrorists Miranda Rights? Palin told us Obama was worried about it but Obama said they did not deserve them so why are we reading the Miranda Rights to the terrorists?
…For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. [emphasis mine] The Weekly Standard
It looks like Obama paid lip service to the idea that terrorists do not deserve Miranda Rights.
It also looks like Sarah Palin was correct.
Quotes A and B from Rush Limbaugh’s website.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: miranda, Obama, palin, rights, terrorists
A Party Of One
Oct 31, 2009 Political
Apparently that is as many as you need to get minority legislation passed in favor of yourself, so you can feel entitled and good about yourself, and as I understand it, this is necessary to life- it’s probably a “right”, right? I mean, if feeling good about yourself isn’t a right, it should be, because we are a minority, and we are entitled.
What bullcrap- nowadays, we have been hijacked by a plethora of “minorities” or “oppressed” peoples, each with their own litany of complaints and demands, like a spoiled child who needs his backside warmed to remind him that he is NOT the center of the universe.
This used to be the country where the majority ruled- because it makes sense to go in the direction that the most people are headed. But we are compassionate people. We have, in the past, accommodated others who might not be of the same faith (other than Christian), of the same dietary needs, people who are, let’s face it, the minority. These are people who make the tapestry that is America much richer for their contributions.
But in recent times- say the last twenty- five years or so, we have bent over backwards to assist others in assimilation into this society, with the aim that they would begin to conform more to the majority in behavior.
Instead, we have begat a segment of society that does not care to assimilate, and doesn’t want to compromise, as if it is they, and not us , who are in the majority. What arrogance on their part. Here’s an example:
The lovely-looking restaurant and bar The Breslin begins lunch service tomorrow, and co-owner Ken Friedman (The Spotted Pig) is planning on serving alcohol despite objections from the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street. Earlier this month the mosque’s leaders called a meeting with Friedman at The Ace Hotel, where The Breslin is located, and asked, “Can you move the bar?” Friedman’s response makes us want to hurry over to The Breslin right now for a dram of Laphroaig to show our support (and drown out the voices):
I said, “This is the United States of America and we’ll do whatever the f*ck we want.” He said the mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad eggs”; i.e., we could get a brick through our window.
gothamist.com
These muslims sincerely believe that our citizens should conform to their standards- what gross stupidity on their part, but it does illustrate how horribly skewed our society has become when these types of “entitled” spoiled brats actually think they can do this. Our compassion at this point begins to dry up when confronted by supercilious attitudes such as these.
Friedman notified police of the threat, but just to show he’s not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents, he agreed to put a curtain over the windows so devout Muslims wouldn’t be corrupted by the sight of infidel inebriation. But the curtain hasn’t arrived yet, so over the weekend he actually taped paper over the windows to hide a gay wedding. A volunteer at the mosque says city law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that “not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar.”
But Ace Hotel developer Andrew Zobler tells The Observer, “The law is clear that in order for that to apply it has to be an exclusively dedicated house of worship, and at their space they have both residences and a restaurant, so basically, because of those uses the law allowed there to be a bar within 200 feet. Everyone was aware of that when the liquor license was granted.” And Friedman adds, “They can threaten, but they can’t really stop us.” Yeah, heh, what are these devout, pissed-off Muslims gonna do?
gothamist.com
What are they going to do indeed? One never knows, but the greater question is who the hell do they think they are? Granted, I would never think of wandering into their mosque sipping a bottle of Bushmills Black label (although I have heard that it is a rather out of this world experience when you sip enough), because I do care somewhat about their sensibilities- at least enough to be polite, but when spoiled people try and dictate their whims to the majority, they begin to act like children in need of discipline, or worse, like liberals.
The solution to either is the same- slap the snot out of them- it will set them on the road to sanity, and in twenty years or so, after they have grown, they will thank you for that guidance.
And perhaps they will have a mature outlook with which they deal with people.
And, for God’s sake not whine so much about non existent “rights”.
If you want rights, look in the Constitution.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alcohol, constitution, entitled brats, Muslims, rights
$3,800 Fine If You Don’t Get Health Insurance
Sep 9, 2009 Political
The newest version of the health care takeover bill making its way around has a provision to fine families up to $3,800 for not obtaining health insurance. The geniuses working on this plan figure that they can solve the problem of people not being able to afford health insurance by fining them. This is like a bank charging you $35 for an overdraft check. They fine you what they know you don’t have. For those who can afford it and choose not to get it, power to them.
There are plenty of things wrong with this whole idea. The first is the idea that you can be forced to buy health insurance.
The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.
Auto insurance is only mandatory if you decide to get a vehicle. If you do not want to pay for car insurance you have the option to not get a car. In other words, you have the freedom to choose whether or not you want to incur this expense. Health insurance is quite different because you have no choice in the matter. You can opt out of car insurance by not driving. The only way to opt out of health insurance is to stop living. While that might make the government happy, it will not be good for you. While we are on the comparison to auto insurance perhaps we could make health insurance like auto insurance in that you have to pay for routine check ups. You have car insurance but it does not cover new tires and oil changes. When you go to the doctor you should have to pay for the routine stuff. That would lower the cost of premiums.
I also note that even with the mandatory requirement for auto insurance (if you have a car) there are still plenty of people driving around without insurance. A huge number of them are ILLEGAL aliens and they have a lot of accidents. Perhaps if they wanted to charge fines for not having insurance they could do it in the auto insurance arena. That would be much more productive.
Another issue here deals with our basic freedoms. We have the freedom to choose (just ask any pro abortion zealot) and should have that freedom when it comes to health insurance. You have every right NOT to buy insurance. My only thing in that regard is, if you get hurt then you pay the bill out of pocket or over time but you have to pay it. If you don’t then they get to come take your stuff to satisfy the bill. I really don’t care if you lose all your worldly possessions because you decided not to get health insurance but I will fight to my death defending your right to take that decision.
The last thing here is the heavy handed approach the government is taking. What it is basically saying is; “Either you will do exactly what we want and buy something that we say you have to have or we will heavily fine you.”
I have stated many times that this is about control. The health care bill is not about health and it is not about care, it is about government control over your life. They will make a rule that you have to buy insurance or you will be fined. Later on they can say that if you don’t have a certain kind of insurance you will be fined. Then they can change some other rule under the threat of a fine.
What next? Will they fine you if your Body Mass Index (BMI) is too high? Will they fine you if your cholesterol is elevated? Will they decide that every American must join a gym and attend three times a week or be fined?
Where does it end?
Can someone explain why we allow the government to do this? Why do they have a say in how we live our lives? Why are so many willing to let them have near total control over their lives?
I would also like to know how it is that a woman cannot be denied an abortion. States keep working on anti abortion laws but liberals are against all that. They are even against parental notification. It is not the role of government, they say, to impose these things on women thus denying them their right to choose. So what gives government the right to choose for the rest of us? What gives it the right to take decisions on our behalf and to force us to do things we might not want to.
Where is our right to choose?
We need to defeat this health care bill completely. They need to start from scratch and keep it simple by fixing what is broken and leaving the rest alone.
They also need to stop attempting to violate our rights by fining us for choosing how we live our lives and what we do and do not buy.
Vote them all out in 2010. We must end the redundancy of incumbency.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Liberals Looking For Control
Sep 6, 2009 Political
The country is looking at the upcoming flu season with worry about the H1N1 (swine) flu and what an outbreak might mean. Will it be as bad as the 1918 Pandemic that killed millions? Will it fizzle out? Will the vaccine that is being rushed trough cause as many problems as the flu?
There are many questions and the government is trying to determine the best course of action.
In Massachusetts that course of action includes a violation of the rights of the people who live in that state. The Legislature is considering a bill that would give government unchecked power to violate citizen’s rights based on a public health emergency as determined by the politicians in charge. Some of the troubling items the state is considering include:
- to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
- to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
- to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
- to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
- to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
- to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
- to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
- to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;
[emphasis in original] World Net Daily
It is not difficult to see that some of these measures violate Constitutionally protected rights. Another issue is what constitutes an emergency? With a law written in such a fashion, the government of Massachusetts could declare an emergency in order to control the population. A public health emergency could be declared to prevent people from assembling for an anti government health care rally.
There are certainly contingencies that need to be in place but no law should take away Constitutionally protected rights. If this is going to happen then they should declare martial law and be done with it.
This proposed law is a chilling reminder of what an unchecked government can do. Massachusetts is a liberal state so where are all the liberals who supposedly oppose violation of their rights? Where is the ACLU?
Imagine how this would have played out if a state with a conservative legislature and Republican governor had proposed the same kind of law.
Elections have consequences and Massachusetts has elected a liberal majority that will do whatever it can to control people.
That is not freedom.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, freedom, liberals, martial law, Massachusetts, rights
Now We Are Political Terrorists
Aug 7, 2009 Political
First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.
Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?
Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]
So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?
The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.
This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.
There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?
We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.
I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.
These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.
For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.
No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?
The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.
Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.
Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, debate, health care, political terrorist, rand paul, rights, Steven Pearlstein