ObamaCare: A Well-Dressed, Un-American, Dissident View of Citizen Outrage

According to the Leftoids, when 53% of the public elect a Democrat president, it's a mandate for HopeChange™ and a full-scale Socialist remodelling of our governing principles. However, when 53% (or more) oppose their universal health care scheme... well, they're just ignorant, dupes and/or un-American, Nazi-like tools of the insurance companies. When Leftoids use their resources to muster their drones and bus them cross-country to demonstrate one imagined greivance after another, it's praised as "community organizing;" when their political opponents do the same thing, it's derided as "astroturfing."

This is rich. The Leftoids -- who for 8 long years reminded us that dissent is patriotic while shouting their bumper-sticker platitudes about "Blood For Oil" and burning Bush in effigy with impunity while decrying the non-existent chilling effect of the Bushitler Junta on their First Amendment rights -- these same Leftoids now think that the angry so-called "mobs" showing up at town hall meetings to give their elected representatives what-for should be silent, because to protest our government is "un-American" and tantamount to Nazism. Americans are encouraged to report fellow citizens to the White House... yet we're the ones who are called Nazis?!?!? It's just fucking Orwellian, isn't it?

And then there's the Gutless Old Party: the RINOs think we should be quiet and civil and engage in reasoned debate with an opposition party that will merely take such as yet another sign of weakness before steamrolling over anyone who stands in their way. Through our distinguished representatives in the House and Senate we had plenty of "civil debate"; we've had it over the TARP bailouts, over the so-called "stimulus" pork slush fund, over the takeovers of the banking and automotive industries. "Civil debate" is working out pretty piss poorly, I'd say.

There may very well be a time and place for civil debate. But not now. As far as I'm concerned, calm, reasoned, civil debate is fine when it's over a fundamental role or function of government -- how best to appropriate defense funds, for example, or regulate interstate commerce. These are specific, enumerated duties that the government is charged with under the Constitution. People can have differing opinions on the ways and means, but these actual roles themselves are not in question; we know this because it's right there in the Constitution, in black and white. But having a civil debate with politicians over how best to implement a government health care takeover is like having a civil debate with a carjacker about how to best maintain your car after he steals it.

Let us be clear: Providing health care to citizens is not a legitimate function of the government -- at least not this government, not under this Constitution. So when half or more of the citizens are in effect told by the ruling class to shut the fuck up, get out of the way and accept yet another encroachment on their liberties by an omnipotent Socialist juggernaut, then shouting is the bare minimum of what must be done, and the shouting mustn't be limited merely to the Democrats, either -- both parties need to be scared of the citizens they (ostensibly) represent. That's the way the system was designed, not the other way around. If they're not scared for their lives, they should at least be scared for their cushy Ivory Tower lifestyle in DC.

Of Extremists, Secession, and Disavowal

Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A group of Texas Democrats says Republican Gov. Rick Perry was reckless when he suggested at an anti-tax rally that fed-up Americans may one day want to secede from the United States. They said Thursday that he should disavow such talk. Democratic state Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco says talk of secession is anti-American and that some people associate it with racial division and the Civil War. Perry's office did not immediately respond Thursday. Answering a question from The Associated Press at an anti-tax rally Wednesday, Perry said he doesn't think Texas should secede. But he said the federal government was thumbing its nose at the American people and added, "who knows what might come out of that."

Well, I think the Democrats should disavow socialism and reaffirm their commitment to states rights and limited federal powers. But they're not going to do that, are they?

If "some people" mistakenly associate our legitimate concerns about the Federal oligarchy overstepping its Constitutional limitations for "racial division," it only proves how out of touch and irrelevant they are.

What exactly did Perry say? The widely reported quote in question is hardly a rally cry for secession:

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

This is what has Leftoids outraged? Please.

As for this Dunnam character, I'll the opportunity to vote against him next time his name shows up on a ballot. I've already written to him urging his support of Texas House Bill 1803 (Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education); a wrong vote on that issue and his seat is toast anyway.

Regarding secession: Do I believe the Tenth Amendment upholds a state's right to secede from the Union? Yes, 100%. Do I believe Texas is going to secede? No -- certainly not yet. Is Rich Perry pandering for votes? Probably. Are his remarks being blown out of both context and proportion by the Left? Yes... and most of those doing so are doing it for the single reason of making Perry and the state rights advocates look like loony separatists. They should study their history.

Our founders were loyal Brits, most of whom were initially opposed to colonial independence; they were dragged into the independence movement slowly by the increasing suppression of their rights as free men by an overpowering government who took them for granted and treated them as serfs. Independence was only a serious consideration after all other avenues of addressing their grievances were exhausted and ignored by the Crown and Parliament.

The fate of our Union lies -- today, tomorrow, and always -- squarely in the hands of the federal government. Good, hard-working Americans are finally taking notice of the way D.C. takes its citizens for granted and they are speaking out. Our government has forgotten who works for whom, and who should fear whom. The Tenth Amendment is clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is no language in the Constitution that specifically allows for secession; neither is there any language that prohibits it.

For the Left's part, their reactions to both Perry's statement and the Tea Party phenomenon are more concerning to me. With their silly Homeland Security and MIAC memos tucked firmly under their arms along with "Rules for Radicals" and "Das Kapital", they label as a "right-wing extremist" and a "terrorist threat" anyone who distrusts the government, who holds strong Tenth Amendment views, who owns guns or supports the Second Amendment, who wants lower taxation and responsible government spending -- basically, anyone who voted against Obama.

That's right, folks -- we're all Timothy McVeighs now. Funny, though... our "terrorists" get executed; theirs get pardons and tenure, and the unwavering support of the Left.

Speaking of "right-wing extremist terrorist threats" -- thank God this guy's off the streets... (h/t: Codrea):



Any questions about why people no longer trust our government?

Honor Student Kills 4 Cops, Guns Clearly To Blame

Honor Student

More proof that gun control works:

Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland
(AP) Sun Mar 22, 10:03 am ET - OAKLAND, Calif.

A police officer was battling for his life and three more were dead after a parolee with an "extensive criminal history" opened fire at a routine traffic stop and hours later gunned down members of a SWAT team searching for him.

The gunman was also killed Saturday, capping a day of violence that the Oakland Police Department said was the worst in its history. Never before had three police officers died in the line of duty on the same day.

[...]

Police said Mixon wielded two different weapons. One gun was used at the first scene and an assault rifle was used at the apartment building where he was hiding.

Jordan said Mixon had an "extensive criminal history" and was wanted on a no-bail warrant.

"(Mixon) was on parole and he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. And he was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon," said Oakland police Deputy Chief Jeffery Israel.

Call for tougher gun control in California (if that's even possible) in 4...3...2... Oh, silly me. It didn't even take that long:

Officer killings renew gun control issue
[...] Oakland police say Lovelle Mixon used a handgun to shoot the motorcyle cops who pulled him over and an assault rifle at the apartment. They say they believe this is an example of why parolees should not be allowed to have guns.

Mixon was on parole and had a warrant out for his arrest for violating that parole. He was also on parole for assault with a deadly weapon according to Oakland Deputy Police Chief Jeffery Israel.

The gun control issue is a controversial one, with 65 House democrats saying just on Wednesday, that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to ban any military-style weapons.

Yes, gun control is the answer. It is obvious that the laws in this country need to be changed to make it illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms. That would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Oh, wait -- it's already illegal for violent felons to keep and bear arms!?!?!? The hell you say! Well then, we should change the laws to place more restrictions on honest, law-abiding gun owners; that would have stopped this guy, for sure.

Note also the requisite mention of "assault rifle" in both these articles. Wouldn't be complete without that! They've got to go, too. I mean, aside from the gazillions of murders they commit (all by themselves, no trigger-puller required), think about all the bed-wetting by limp-wristed Leftoids that can be avoided if we eliminate scary looking guns.

In a nutshell: A career criminal let out of jail to walk the streets (by whom, I wonder...) commits murder with guns that he is forbidden by Federal and State law to own. Murder is illegal, gun possession by a felon is illegal, there are countless laws on the books already that this asshole has broken. The State of California knew he was a violent felon, they had him incarcerated, but decided it was in the public interest to let him walk free amongst us humans. And when this honor student commits murder (despite laws saying he can't do that) with guns (despite laws saying he can't own them) the answer is to place further gun restrictions on me?!?!?

Makes perfect sense, I suppose, if you're a citizen of the Leftoid Bizarro World.

Bonus Question -- Find the "assault rifle":

Now, what's the difference between the two?

Answer: NOTHING. Except that one is scary looking and makes Leftoids wet their panties. Both shoot the same rounds, both accept the same magazines, both can be used for "assault." Yet, one is on the would-be gun grabbers' shit list, the other is not.

Well, not yet, anyway...

Fight the Real Enemy!

First, a word from our sponsor:

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. (*) ME 2:225

And now, the news.

Our government overlords have revealed their new plan to combat terrorism, and it's a simple one: Just redefine "terrorist" to describe anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Leftoid worldview.

People (that is, "White Males") who own firearms, support Libertarian candidates, own a "Don't Tread On Me" flag, watch videos about the Federal Reserve, read Tom Clancy novels, believe in the US Constitution, and/or mistrust our government -- according to some nondescript government agency called the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), these people are the real enemies of America.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

I don't believe in the supremacy of the white race, or any other. Nor do I believe in a Vast Zionist Conspiracy. I don't particularly like Ron Paul or his supporters all that much -- I find him to be the Ross Perot du jour, someone who can to make perfect sense while still giving me the heebie-jeebies. I am not (as yet) even a member of the Libertarian Party, mostly because I don't believe in wasting my vote as a matter of principle just to "send a message." That said...

• I DO consider myself to be a (small "l") libertarian and subscribe to just about every plank in the Libertarian Party platform.
• I DO believe in the US Constitution; I believe that it means what it says, and that it should be taken literally.
• I DO own firearms, which I keep and bear under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
• I DO oppose restrictive gun laws, and believe that an unchecked government eventually will move to confiscate my firearms.
• I DO oppose the notion of a one-world government and especially despise the United Nations, and find our government's cozying up to a collection of authoritarian thugs and and dictators to be sickening.
• I DO oppose the increasing federalization of the states; the Tenth Amendment is another one of those things that means what it says.
  

In short, I DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT. Apparently for good reason, because they don't seem to trust people like me, either.

According to the aforementioned nondescript government agency, this qualifies me as a right-wing extremist and a terrorist threat. So be it. At least I'm in good company: Thomas Jefferson fought to have the Bill of Rights ratified along with the Constitution for that very reason -- he believed that government could not be trusted with power over the citizenry. He seems to be the grandfather of the so-called "Militia Movement" as defined by MIAC.

Unfortunately, what Jefferson feared and foretold 230 years ago is coming to pass; our rights have been ever so slowly eroding since the end of the Civil War, which effectively settled the question of whether states can secede from the Union, the first drop of White-Out to hit our Constitution. It's happened slowly enough that people don't even notice because they're too transfixed by American Idol.

Will I wake up one day and find myself on a government watch list because I choose to exercise my God given right to keep and bear arms? Or have a bumper sticker endorsing the "wrong" candidate on my Jeep? Or go to the "wrong" church? Or say mean things about our articulate and clean President on my blog? When will it end? And how badly? Am I paranoid, or merely observant?

The MIAC website has a handy form for citizen-comrades to report their neighbors suspicious activities. Maybe they'll add a check box for "Has Ron Paul Bumper Sticker on his Lexus" after "Miscellaneous Suspicious Activity with a Terrorism Nexus." If this doesn't give you the creeps, nothing will.

Meanwhile, back in Obama-land: Let's close down Gitmo and let those poor Islamic so-called "terrorists" go. While we're at it, stop calling Islamic Fascists captured on the battlefield while trying to kill American soldiers "Enemy Combatants" -- why, it might offend them. And besides, referring to them as such might lend credence to the notion that America is, indeed, at war. Which, of course, we're not.

We are so fucked.

Catastrophe Update

Herr Krauthammer is on the money about the D.C. Doomsayers:

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

[...] It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said. [Emphasis mine.]

Yep. "He said."

Obama said lots of things, and some of us even listened to what he had to say, which is why all of this "stimulus" scheme is anything but a shock to me -- he's doing exactly what he promised when he talked about "spreading the wealth around."

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Rise and shine, sleepyheads!

Doomsday Is Nigh!!!

Once again, the High Priests are warning of impending catastrophe, a certain end to all we know and love, the great Apocalypse foreshadowed by the prophets, and there's NO WAY TO STOP IT!!!!!

Except to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah... some preacher at The Church or Global Cooling... Global Warming... Global Cooling... Climate Change was just recently warning us that if we don't tax CO2 emitters (that is to say, every living, breathing thing that falls under the 'fauna' category) and turn over the cash to, well, The Church, then the oceans will boil (or freeze... I forget what they've decided this week), children and childish adults will cry, the planet will die, and all life as we know it will end. Uncaring Conservatives are too stoopid to admit that the debate is over and the science is settled; and besides, they all live in mountaintop mansions with air conditioning and won't be affected when the tides rise 100 ft. We're rushing ahead to environmental doomsday faster than Barney Frank to happy hour at The Ramrod. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Now, we find ourselves on the brink of our new Catastrophe du Jour: Complete economic collapse. We're losing 500 million jobs each month -- quite a feat, in a country with only 300 million people. Soon, elitist Liberals won't be able to afford the fuel for their Gulfstreams; this in turn will reduce attendance at Sundance and Cannes, causing the economy to further spiral into the abyss. Uncaring Conservatives don't need money as long as they have their religion and guns to cling to, and their ears are deaf to the cries of the children whom they have no concern for once they're out of the womb. We're rushing ahead to economic doomsday faster than Ted Kennedy to a bridge. And the only way to stop it is to raise taxes and spend a Gazillion dollars on big government.

Save us, Obama!!!

Obama: Catastrophe coming if Congress doesn't act

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Wednesday the recession will turn into "a catastrophe" if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly, lobbying for the plan anew as its price tag climbed above $900 billion and drew more criticism.

The president rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone would solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform can wait until afterward. The White House released some of Obama's remarks ahead of a White House announcement on executive compensation limits.

[...]

Obama urged members of Congress "to act without delay" while also promising to make changes to the legislation.

"No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger," he said. "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let's show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."

Obama has sought each day to ratchet up the pressure on lawmakers, bringing different supportive groups to the White House, scheduling a series of TV interviews, even traveling to a charter school to tout one portion of the bill.

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," he said in his prepared remarks. "That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

Remember, folks -- it's only the Conservatives that use fear as a tool to further their agendas.

Obama argued that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach, saying the American people expressed their preference for his ideas when they chose him as president in November.

In other words, "I won."

Yes, you won, Savior. But you didn't win by telling voters beforehand that you were going to go on a $1,000,000,000,000+ spending spree during your first month in office. For those who get desensitized by all those zeros, here's a pretty picture to put it all into perspective:

(h/t Suitably Flip, via Libertarian.org)

Many others have pointed out that the Democrats have the votes to pass this on their own, they don't need "bipartisanship" to implement this scam. However, they will need bipartisanship when, in the near future, they find themselves in front of voters to explain this debacle. They need bipartisanship so they can deflect the blame to the Republicans when (if?) the American people wake up and realize they've been fleeced.

You'd think the GOP would see through all this... but no, they're going scurry aboard and sign onto this piece of garbage anyway. They'll knock maybe a few billion dollars from the bill and pass perhaps a $1.1T package instead of a $1.2T one, then delude themselves into believing they were victorious. The Loyal Opposition has morphed into the Loyal Lapdog, which is why I despise Republicans even more than the Democrats right now -- at least the Dems do what they promise.

Update 2/5: No letting up on the fear-mongering. Malkin covers our Savior-in-Chief's op-ed piece in Pravda The Washington Post.