Vision, Mission, and Strategy


Hillbilly Politics

False Premises

OK–it’s time to just come out and say it. So-called liberals must be desperate, because–with regard to the Ground Zero mosque (as with so many other past cultural issues)–Barack Obama has sided against the American people–again. How do I know this to be true? Well, let’s just look at the steady stream of hysterical op-eds coming out of The New York Times slandering the American people as racist, Islamaphobic, unpatriotic dumb-dumbs. (Yes, I know, so-called liberals must be pretty desperate to play the patriotism card–I thought they thought that patriotism was gauche.)

For instance, last weekend, TV entertainer, Dick Cavett, wrote a column titled, Real Americans, Please Stand Up. (Did you get that? If you disagree with him about the Ground Zero mosque, you aren’t a “real American”.) In this op-ed, Cavett goes on to lament how “ashamed of us” he is, and he even goes so far as to write the following insanity–

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

So now, not only am I not a “real American”, but I want to kick pregnant Japanese women in the belly.

Oh, but Mr. Cavett is not alone in his inane ramblings. On Sunday, theater critic, Frank Rich, wrote a column titled, How Fox Betrayed Petraeus, and on Monday cultural writer, Nicholas Kristof, wrote a column titled, Taking bin Laden’s Side.

Now, just from the titles of these op-eds alone, it should be painfully obvious what The New York Times is trying to do–i.e., “otherize” all opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as bigoted, anti-American rednecks with the worst possible motives. However, all of these columns were rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in any information about the previous troubling, statements from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the man behind the mosque), or the fact that that Iman Rauf has not been at all transparent about where the money’s coming from to build this mosque at Ground Zero. So, for flat out slandering the American people as anti-American bigots–and being disingenuous as to why they are really upset about the Ground Zero mosque–The New York Times deserves to wear “The Cone of Shame”. Continue reading

NY Mosque

There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions to the Ground Zero Mosque/Cultural Center. I’ve had my own, which was troubling as I generally don’t care about others’ religion except in the general sense of wanting everyone to go to Heaven. Why we’ve had such visceral reactions is not easy to put into words and most will fail at putting it into words, though I’ll give it a try.

Our understanding of Islam is that it is not “just a religion” but a whole system of government and economics as well as religion. This runs counter to the main argument being used by both sides. To date, the framers of the debate on the Ground Zero Mosque, have designated freedom of religion as the hill to die on. The problem with this approach is that it allows those debating to avoid the big issues lurking underneath.

Just as we Christians have different doctrinal flavors (Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, and so on) so does Islam. The particular “flavor” of Islam that is being promoted with the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is that of Wahhabism and Sharia Law.

The would-be builders are seeking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran among other nations that practice the above described religion, which isn’t just a religion. In addition, those builders/backers refuse to give any assurances that this new “cultural center” won’t be a repeat of this one (emphasis mine). Continue reading

I believe what you mean is we should raise taxes, rather than add a new one.

Speaking at a security conference in San Francisco, Microsoft Vice President for Trustworthy Computing Scott Charney pitched the Web usage fee as one way to subsidize efforts to combat emerging cyber threats — a costly venture, he said, but one that had vast community benefits.

The problem with this is: We already pay fees and taxes for web usage. We also pay fees and taxes for phone usage (both cell and land lines), cable TV, and utilities in general.

This is someone who has never looked at a bill for any service he pays. We pay sales taxes, franchise fees, FCC fees, and the like typically adding up to about 20-25% of the bill, depending on the service. For instance, my Vonage business account is supposed to cost $49.99/month but the bill is always $74 or higher. If I don’t go over my free minutes for the toll free or fax numbers, it’s $74/month. If I go over… well, you get the idea.

Go ahead, open up your next bill or dig out one of your old ones and look at all the various fees and taxes that are added to the supposed cheap price of services. It becomes more ironic when you find you’re paying taxes on a government owned utility such as your electric bill or water services.

Where has this guy been living? In a cocoon? People are already hurting trying to make their dollars stretch and he wants to add yet another tax. I suppose this is one of those: The government will insure that it receives its fair share of our labors regardless of how they describe it, be it income tax or some fee for supposed services that never seem to materialize into anything concrete except more governmental control.

800px-Mary_Landrieu_DNC_2008The author of the article likens it to a Tennesee Williams play. Mary Landrieu sold out the country for $300 million, not $100 million as previously reported. Dana Milbank is right. It is a play but nothing really like those from Williams.

The script has become old and worn from overuse and the lines have been memorized by those who hear them, more so than those who act the parts for our benefit. The patrons are mutinous demanding better for their money but the actors seemed locked into this one play unable to step out of it to engage in another.

“My vote today,” she [Landrieu] said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, “should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.”

How many times have we heard this same claim, yet, 97% of all bills that are approved in cloture become law. The actor indicates he hears the mutinous crowd, promising something different, but as the final act ensues we hear once again the same tired lines that echo in our memory like a too real nightmare proving to the patrons they were not heard at all.

Note: This is quite likely one of the shortest posts I’ve ever written but does anything more really need to be said?

Crossposted to RedState.

{{w|Jim Cooper}}, U.S. Congressman.
Image via Wikipedia

Eh, not so much. This is Cooper.

On November 7, 2009:

Nevertheless, the Nashville Democrat planned to vote in favor of the $1.1 trillion package.

“My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed,” Cooper said in a written statement issued during Saturday night’s debate. The bill passed in the House late Saturday night.

“There is little chance that (the House bill) will become law due to the long legislative process.”

His reasoning seems to be it won’t pass the Senate or a “passing of the buck.” He also stated he was voting for it “to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act.”

What if he is wrong?

What he voted for was this:

… who has not had health insurance coverage
or coverage under an employment-based health plan
for at least the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of the individual’s application for high-risk pool coverage under this section.(pg 18, HR 3962)

So, what is said in public is not backed up in the bill they support. How many people with cancer can wait 6 months for treatment? In spite of the rhetoric and sob stories, Congress isn’t going to do anymore for the people than the insurance companies will do.

His reasoning?

“Without passage of this House bill, the Senate could delay reform indefinitely. That would be the worst possible outcome because our current health care system is not sustainable,” he said.

Did you know there’s a matching funds requirement?

(2) MATCHING FUND REQUIREMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph
(B), no grant may be awarded to a State unless the State demonstrates the seriousness of its effort by matching at least percent of the grant amount through non-Federal resources, which may be a combination of State, local, private dollars from insurers, providers, and other private organizations.(pg 75, HR 3962)

The federal government will raise taxes to pay for this and the states will be forced to play along. Why is it that every time the federal government decides to interfere with something, it means hardship for the respective states? How is your state placed in this economic downturn? Will you be able to afford all the new taxes?

And, yes, Cooper voted for this:

In fact, Cooper was the lone Tennessee vote.

Never mind individual circumstances that might preclude buying a $15,000 dollar policy which is the cheapest one can buy. Never mind the waiting periods for pre-existing conditions. Never mind the cuts to Medicare into which retirees and future retires have poured billions of dollars over decades. Never mind that a 5 year jail sentence is a death sentence to some. Never mind that with that death sentence it means someone will die for someone else’s sense of entitlement. Please, just never mind all the negatives. Just look over here at the cherries. Cherries come with pits and we’re expected to swallow the pits with the fruit… and like it even if it kills us.

And please ignore the majority of Americans who don’t want this plan, especially in an economic downturn. We’re simply right-wing extremists and must be ignored on your way to Shangri-La.

And the excuse, as always, is: “To move it forward.” How many times have we heard that from both sides of the aisle? Does anything get moved forward other than bigger government, more intrusion into our private lives, and more authority over our individual labors toward the American Dream?

Oh, and did I tell you he’s the lone Tennessee vote? I’m sure I must have.

I have no understanding of what it means to be a Blue Dog Democrat if Jim Cooper is supposed to be a prime example. I suppose what it used to mean is no longer what it means. Perhaps, we need a new term for them: BDINO (Blue Dog In Name Only).

Oh and speaking of Blue Dog Democrats, remember that Owens fellow in NY23 who was supposed to be more conservative than Scozzafava, whom she endorsed over a real conservative candidate? He broke four campaign promises within an hour of being sworn in.

Perhaps we should call them what they really are: Liars. There’s no such creature as a Blue Dog Democrat. They’re myths just like their campaign promises.

To say all politicians lie is to admit to apathy and helplessness. When are we going to expect more of the people we pay to represent us? We do not pay them to cater to the Nancy Pelosi’s of Congress. We do not pay them to serve their own self-interest over the interests of the people for whom they work.

Now that I’ve rambled in the NY23 territory let’s get back to Cooper. Did I tell you that Cooper was the lone vote from Tennessee? I was wrong. I suppose two out of seven isn’t bad.

It is small comfort to have only the hope that it is indeed D.O.A. in the Senate as is being claimed. Cooper’s own words imply that is the hope when he says it’s “to advance the cause of healthcare”, which is the equivalent of saying, “The dog ate my homework.”

Hope is cold comfort if you’re one of the ones who may end up sitting in a jail cell because Congress is full of cowards.

Crossposted to Sidetick and The Minority Report.

Individual freedom is being assaulted from so many different directions the sheer weight of the assaults can cause the hardiest of us to buckle. Yet, there are still some who believe the government has only our best interests at heart. I find that sentiment mind-blowing in the face of what the government is doing.

Accessing records without consent of the individual.

… This study should include incentives such as “higher rates of reimbursement or other incentives for such health care providers to use electronic health records” and “promoting low-cost electronic health record software packages that are available for use by such health care providers.”

Read it all. Apparently, our ever so magnanimous government doesn’t care about the assault on our private records or the sharing of such records across agencies as their new health care legislation will require it.

As one friend put it:

“Our best
practice dictates that if you want to keep something private, don’t
share it. If data is shared by more than one entity, none of the
parties knows who leaked it. Eventually, anything shared becomes
public knowledge. This is one more case of the unwary opening
Pandora’s box.” (Thanks, Loren.)

But that’s not possible, is it? The government is supposed to take care of us, right? Right?

Then there’s net neutrality.

Their website is full of blatant lies. They claim that Net Neutrality would not be a new regulation, when in fact the whole point of the push is to get new regulations in place backed by the so-called Internet Freedom Preservation Act currently in the House. Obama’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski also made that much plain in a recent speech, that he wants the FCC to be an active, aggressive force on the Internet, picking winners and losers in private network policy disputes.

Again, read the whole article.

It’s okay if a Democrat does it.

Every student who brings someone to the polls to vote in the city council elections in Athens, OH gets $5.00.

Nice. But is that illegal?

Of course, it’s illegal. When did legality ever stop a liberal from doing what a liberal wants to do? They have a “cause” and this is merely the means to the end. Never mind that most of us don’t want the end they want.

How do you compete with government owned?

A new union contract would have lowered Ford’s labor costs in line with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC. It also included a no-strike provision. Workers are barred from striking Ford’s domestic rivals for several years as a condition of their bankruptcy restructurings.

“The UAW contract is up in 2011, and I think there could be a strike,” said John Wolkonowicz, an analyst with IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.

Isn’t that bit like union workers sabotaging a competitor because they now have a stake in the other two companies? Nah, the government owns the union workers, too, now doesn’t it?

Wouldn’t that make union bosses the overseers of the government owners’ plantations? I thought slavery was dead in this country. Apparently, the Democrats want to go back to the future.

It’s not illegal so get used to it.

A San Francisco cosmetics company has ignited an outcry among pro-lifers for including an unexpected ingredient in its anti-aging creams: skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus. […]

In a statement released Friday, in response to a wave of condemnation from pro-life and religious blogs, Neocutis defended the use of its trademarked ingredient, Processed Skin Cell Proteins, or PSP, arguing that the fetal cell line was harvested in a responsible, ethical manner for use in treating severe dermatological injuries.

The company compared its situation to that of researchers who used fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine.

It’s not as if they’re human, after all. That would be murder wouldn’t it? Murder for hire, if you want to put a fine point on it considering abortionists are paid to do the dirty work. And then they sell the bodies of the slain innocents to others for a bit more?

It’s not as if you’re not pro-choice. Oh no, we wouldn’t want to interfere with the government ruling that killing innocents is legal as long as it isn’t civilian casualties in the midst of fighting wars against terrorists who find safe havens among those civilians.

It’s for the children, after all, isn’t it? To make beauty products so others don’t have to age gracefully.

If the government can’t manage vaccinations with any level of competency, how do we expect them to manage health care? By creating more government agencies (read: bureaucracies), of course.

For a comparison to other welfare programs spending, let’s take a look shall we?

Over the next decade, welfare spending will amount to $30,000 per person per year — $120,000 for a family of 4 per year — 56% of which (or $67,200) goes to the recipients.

Moreover, these direct costs do not cover the concomitant costs for enterprises. That is, many organizations apply to whole populations, although their justification is the needs of the “poor.” For example, most people can afford education, but to guarantee it for the poor, there is public education for most, as well as subsidies. The same holds for establishing Social Security, Medicare, housing, health insurance, and industrial policy. There are then huge additional costs to the taxpayers and to the recipients of services who are not “poor.”

How much more than the 36% already being spent will these new bureaucracies cost? I wouldn’t put it past the government to flip those numbers. We can do without, of course. We might starve, freeze to death, or have a heat stroke but we’ll have health care if we do, right?

You can continue to believe in government’s goodwill if you choose. But don’t expect me to “jump off the Brooklyn Bridge” with you. If you keep trusting a government that has proven untrustworthy, this is what you get. You can make excuses all you want or say you didn’t sign onto this but if you support any part of it, you support the whole.

One person critiquing said this post seems disjointed but it’s not really. They are widely varying topics but are all these things are being perpetrated by the government simultaneously.

What the government is doing is assaulting us with a dozen skirmishes at once all taking place in the same general location but with different foci; the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to make our own decisions based on our individual circumstances as to what is best for us. When we focus on one point of attack we risk losing sight of the other battles taking place around us. These battles are orchestrated to keep us off balance in the hopes that one of them will gain them an opening and their desire of government for the government in spite of the people.

Crossposted to RedState

Next Sunday is my 51st birthday. I won’t be here on that day so I’m “celebrating” a bit early. For the first time in my life I’m scared of my government. That’s a first I never wanted to experience.

In every life there is always some uncertainty and insecurities. We can get angry at some of them or we can be depressed or run a gamut of emotions over turmoil.

Jaded says that race relations have not been this bad in decades. Obama was supposed to be a post-racial president. He was also supposed to be a bi-partisan president. In fact, he promised to be a lot of post- somethings. Instead, he went in the opposite direction. Who could have seen that coming? (A lot of people who were deemed racists for saying so.)

It’s not racial tensions that have me frightened. Racial tensions ebb and tide and there’s a limit to how much rage can be spewed before it dissipates, although it could get bloody before that limit is reached. We’ve been bloody before and while worrying it does not bring me to full terror.

It’s the whole monstrosity of government.There’s a segment of the country gnashing their teeth at the Republicans, insulting them with the “Party of No” nom de plume and insulting the people who oppose this complete takeover of the country that signals the death of our Constitution.

Some want that death, yet seem to have little understanding that it is the only thing standing between the government and our civil rights. Given the numbers who want it they may well achieve their goals and that is what scares me.

The federal government is made up of three parts and it seems two of those parts are in collusion to effect that change. The “Party of No”, in times past a part of the collusion, at others standing against it, has withdrawn and shed light on what happens in the shadows. It’s not pretty and I had not realized that we were so far gone until they did step back.

The other side wants its cover back so they can continue to work in the shadows and resort to bullying to get it. We’re called hate-mongers by people who hate us and what we stand for. If we dare question their premise or their statements, we’re accused of questioning their patriotism. I used to question their patriotism but not anymore. It’s just their patriotism is for something that isn’t this country in its original inception but for their own conception of what this country should be.

No, it’s the government that has me scared. Laws are permanent things. Once enacted they’re rarely repealed. That is why there is the hot and heavy debate over the health care bill. Some of us have actually read it and know more about what is in it than the Congress that purportedly wrote it.

In just the health care bill alone there are mechanisms of control that will be permanent and subdue (if not completely kill them) our civil rights under the Constitution. And there is other legislation coming down the pike that will cement those controls in place. For anyone who has read any part of these upcoming bills, they realize that it is more about control and very little about the thing they’re promising to fix. And they’ll lie and lie and lie, ad infinitum to achieve their goal which is power and control.

To show you what I mean here’s a small list of indignities (their so-called myths):

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per
mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

In addition, in the early pages of the bill, pg 170, HR3200, it specifies that any nonresident alien is exempt from individual taxes.

What that says to me is that illegal aliens will be provided for under the health care bill. Now, that’s to be expected considering what who wants it. The issue is: Why Do They Have to Lie About it?

The pols say abortion isn’t covered in the bill but neglect to mention that it’s in there by definition pgs. 769-770, HR3200.

The health care bill provides for government sharing of your personal data, including bank records, between departments that have absolutely nothing to do with health care, pg 735, HR3200.

I’ll stop there otherwise I’ll be here for the next week outlining that bill. However, the pols say these things aren’t in there and, yet, here they are. When that doesn’t work, they say the bill hasn’t been written, yet. So, they lie. Why do they have to lie if it’s such a good deal?

Even if you’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because you support Obama or one or another member of Congress, remember what I said: Laws are typically permanent things.

I’m not just scared of my government. I’m terrified.

Crossposted to Redstate.

Yeah, that’s right, Governor. The criticism of you and President Obama is because you’re Black. That’s much easier to accept than the truth: it’s because you’re incompetent.

Gov. Paterson says people ‘nervous’ over minorities in office; White House: Obama doesn’t agree

Gov. Paterson is still blaming race for his his troubles.

After complaining on a Friday radio show that he is the victim of an “orchestrated” campaign to push him out of office, Paterson told a blogger that some people are uncomfortable with too many black pols in power.

“Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous,” Paterson told political blogger Gerson Borrero over the weekend.

See? This is the mind of a true, blue liberal. Nothing’s ever their fault. There’s always some nefarious reason why people are against them.

But the Obama White House won’t publicly back this drivel.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday morning that the President does not share Paterson’s view that criticism of him or any other politician is racially motivated.

“In terms of media coverage of the President, he thinks that there are a lot of people who agree with him in the media, there are a lot people who disagree with him in the media, and there are a lot of folks who play it straight,” Burton told reporters in Martha’s Vineyard, where Obama is vacationing, Monday morning.

emphasis added.

If Burton had just stopped at the first part of his sentence he wouldn’t have had to make up that other stuff. Of course Obama “thinks that there are a lot of people who agree with him in the media” because they are blatant about their man-crush for him.

As for incompetent NY Gov. Patterson…not so much. They like Patterson but Obama will always be the media’s first true love.

November 2017
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  


    


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.