Wednesday, July 28, 2010

An Open Letter to Robert Hurt, Republican Hopeful in VA-5

Dear Mr. Hurt,

Congratulations on your nomination by the Republican party to run against the Democrat incumbent congressman Tom Perriello. His record thus far has demonstrated his abandonment (or perhaps absence) of morality, reality, and constitutional restraint.

I have one question which will determine whether or not you deserve to occupy the seat you intend to fill: What assurance can you give the the persons of Virginia's 5th district that your election will mean a return to a small government limited in its scope and influence by the terms set forth in the Constitution? I refer here to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution as written, debated, and ratified; specifically Article 1, Section 8.

You have voted to increase funding for K-12 government education. You voted for Governor Warner's $1.4 billion tax increase, after spending a surplus of $900 million. In your latest public policy statement, you claim government spending is out of control, which is true. You claim that you will bring jobs and leadership to the district, and get debt and deficits under control. You claim that these policies will enable us to keep more of our hard-earned money in our pockets rather than send it to Washington. But if the size and scope of the federal government is not reduced, how will this be accomplished? Inflation? Surely, we will be keeping more of our money in our pockets, but those paper dollars will be worth less.

You fail to mention the Constitution anywhere on your campaign web site, yet you make the claim that "[c]onservative leaders are speaking out and endorsing Robert because they know that they can count on him to be a reliably conservative voice for the people of Virginia in Congress." Do you even know what the term "conservative" means?

You call for a line-item veto, but without a Constitutional Amendment, this would be in violation of the Constitution (I,7).

You want to end Virginia's estate tax. Good. If you attempt this at the federal level, we once again have a constitutional issue.

You want to create incentives for small businesses. Why not say you want to cut corporate and capital gains taxes?

You want to expand reciprocity for concealed carry. Again, something which cannot be done at the federal level, McDonald notwithstanding.

You have made the following statement: "As a member of the House of Delegates and the Virginia State Senate, I have consistently opposed tax increases and spending proposals that did not put the people first." (emphasis mine) Who are "the people" and how are they "put first?" Would you vote for a tax increase on a small percentage of people earning higher incomes because the "rich" are not "the people," and they can afford it anyway? Would you vote for a spending increase in social welfare programs because it would "put the people first?"

To be perfectly candid, Mr. Hurt, you sound like just another big-government RINO. We do not need another Kirk, Castle, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Brown, or Goode. It will not be a hard-sell to defeat the inept Tom Perriello. But it will be a hollow victory for America and the persons of Virginia's 5th district if you cannot pledge to be bound by the Constitution, and to follow conservative principles.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Bumper

For whatever reason, YouTube videos will not display as the top item, but will display later when something else is posted. ???

These Are the People Dear Leader Chairman Maobama Has Chosen to Dominate You, UPDATE 7/21

This is what is great about the internet. It is also why the statists want to control the internet - so this type of exposure of reality to a candid world can be avoided, or at least limited. This story broke yesterday on Brietbart's BigGovernment.com , and this despicable bigot statist had resigned as of 8 pm yesterday:



Here she advises her audience to seek federal employment at the Department of Agriculture because, as she says, "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say.":


Candor is so refreshing.

UPDATE: Ms. Sherrod says she was told by the White House to "pull over to the side of the road" to tender her resignation. Could the White House mean this in the old Soviet way of "saving paperwork?"

Friday, July 16, 2010

What's Next?

Over at American Thinker, Jeffrey Folks says the Future of the News is state control. Why not? We have state control of nearly every other aspect of our lives, including life itself. Traditional media are failing, and the FTC and FCC have determined the cause to be, as usual, not enough money. Mr. Folks contends it is not fairness or any other altruistic sentiment which concerns the Obama regime. The intent is to silence opposition and its expression through conservative media:
Nowhere in its extensive discussion does the FTC consider the possibility that old-line media are failing because they are simply out of touch with the American people. The mainstream television news outlets are clinging to a liberal ideology that is as irrelevant as Lyndon Baines Johnson, but they refuse to change. Who wants to hear Brian Williams's endless reports on "Making a Difference" when those reports routinely bash capitalism in favor of community organizing? Who wants to listen to more of the media's underhanded propaganda pieces carefully timed to support "progressive" legislation like Obamacare and cap and trade? Who wants to watch their biased exposés taking on religious leaders, big business, and the American military?


The FTC seems to believe that serious news reporting cannot exist without government subsidies. Why is it that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have flourished while traditional networks and the New York Times have fallen off a cliff? Fox News and the Journal are doing just fine -- as are thousands of conservative websites and radio stations -- without government intervention. Government's contention that news reporting is in decline is simply preposterous: Americans are more engaged and better-informed than ever before. Perhaps that is what worries Obama's regulators.

Mr. Folks goes on to compare the attempt at state control of media to Hitler's rise to power. He carefully explains that while while the ObamAdministration, and Obama himself, are not being compared to the whole of Hitler's record, the control itself is Hitlerian.
A crucial aspect of Hitler's rise to power was control of the media. During the run-up to the March 5, 1933 elections -- the last truly legitimate elections to be held until after the war -- Goebbels employed every means of propaganda to ensure Hitler's success. Mass meetings, prominently reported in the print media and dramatically broadcast on radio, were planned for maximum impact. As Fest writes: "The country was inundated with appeals, slogans, parades, displays of banners" (Fest 409). Goebbels also employed his own party newspaper -- Der Angriff ["The Attack"] -- to full effect.


I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler. I am suggesting that like Hitler -- and like Castro, Chávez, and many other radicals with grandiose ambitions -- Obama intends to exert control over the media to secure his own political power. Obama is out of touch with the public, yet determined to impose his brand of socialism on the country. To succeed in this evil and undemocratic program, he must silence his opponents. And to silence his opponents, he must control the media. Thus the process now underway at the FTC and FCC.


Freedom's last stand is under full attack from this jackass, President Obama, and his evil cabal. Are you more concerned with your I-Phone, Twitter updates, the screen resolution of your new T.V.,People Magazine, and Entertainment Weekly, or are you going to wake up and do something about it?

In a related story, I would like to thank my Senators, Jim "Melonhead" Webb and Mark "Moron" Warner for voting in favor of the ObamAdministration's financial reform legislation. NB to Robert Hurt: Should you be elected Congressman for Virginia's 5th district, you should sponsor a bill to repeal all laws passed by the current congress.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Free Lunch

The Wall Street Journal reports that the ObamAdministration will release today a list of health care services which shall soon be "free" to the consumer. The "free" services include

[c]ancer screenings, including mammograms and colonoscopies, as well as obesity prevention services, immunizations, blood pressure screenings and tobacco cessation services are among those that will be available to consumers without a copayment or other direct costs for consumers on new health plans after Sept. 23.

NB - "Other direct costs" does not have the same definition as "free."

The article goes on to say that the list of "free" services will be debated by the industry over what is, and is not, included. The author neglects, however, to state (or perhaps even realize) that nothing is ever truly "free." This is an affliction which is most commonly found amongst liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists - otherwise known as "statists." Someone will have to pay for the "free" services, which will mean either higher taxes, increased borrowing, or inflation. Maybe even all three. We will, the author's statements suggest, argue about what we get on our "free" pizza. Unfortunately, at this point we can't afford even garlic bread.

"The biggest beneficiaries will be those who previously had sparse policies with high copays for such services. " Let me rephrase this statement: "The biggest beneficiaries will be those who will have zero tax liability. The rest of us will get soaked." If you don't believe me, ask Dear Leader's new minister-without-portfolio (or hearing) unconfirmed-and-recess-appointed head of CMS Dr. Donald Berwick. He says it's all about redistribution of wealth:




The welfare state will collapse under its own weight. And Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will bitch-slap the Democrats in November.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Racism

Racism is disgusting. Left-wing statists have a near-monopoly on this issue. To wit, this low-life excuse for a human who was protected by the Obama Justice Department: