Hypocrisy and the High Court

As many of you are aware, we are in the middle of a great battle in the Supreme Court over Obama's healthcare law.  Several states have joined together to file suit against the bill on the grounds that it is un-Constitutional.  I am not going to rehash what is already out there regarding it's Constutionality here.  That is a well covered topic.

What I want to cover is the hypocricy in the House and Senate members who made this bucket of slop a law...

During the arguments on Obamacare, conservative justice, Antonin Scalia compared the task of reading the law cover to cover as "cruel and unusual punishment," saying it violated the 8th Amendment.  He even asked the question, "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? Is this not totally unrealistic...that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”  This comment sent Democrat senators and congressman into a hypocritical, self-righteous tizzy...

Justice Antonin's comments upset Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and hurt his little feelings.  Senator Nelson is a member of the Gang of 14, which in 2005 established guidelines for considering judicial nominees.  He is probably upset that he had nothing to do with Scalia's nomination, which happened in 1986.  He said,  “I am concerned that Justice Scalia’s comments call into question his impartiality and instead suggest judicial activism,” It would appear that Nelson was disturbed by Scalia’s suggestion that reading the law was too much to expect of justices ruling on its constitutionality.  Set aside that Scalia's comments were sarcastic (which he is known for) and made fun of the assinine practice of loading up a bill so that a Senator or Congressman doesn't have time to read the whole thing before voting on it.

My guess it that Senator Nelson probably felt like he got a major boot to the head.  Simply put, Justice Antonin's comments were a commentary on "acceptable practices" currently in our Legislature.  Dems just happen to be under the target more direct in this particular case, since it is their "Obamanation" of a healthcare law that is under scrutiny.  And Senator Nelson was not the only Dem who felt personally attacked by the accurate comments of Justice Scalia...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), questioned Scalia’s complaint about the bill’s length too.

"These arguments are flip and specious, that’s all I can say,” said Feinstein.  Only, that wasn't all she had to say.  Feinstein said striking down the healthcare law would have "enormous implications that should be taken very seriously. This could take down Social Security, too..." she said. "If the questions indicate a trend line as reported there’s real jeopardy for the government to achieve any real benefits for people. Even Medicaid is in question."  She went on to say that Congress put in a lot of years of work and "thought" into healthcare reform in the years since former First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded a failed healthcare reform effort in 1993.  So much thought and work that the bill was 2700 pages long.  "This is the biggest Supreme Court hearing in terms of effect on the nation in my lifetime," she said.

Am I the only one seeing (calling out, writing about) the hypocrisy here?

One of the Dem ring leaders for this whole Obamacare fiasco is none other than the House "Queen Bee" herself.  Nancy Pelosi.  Does anyone remember what she said about "reading the bill?"  And I quote:

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

This is one of the many things that helped contribute to the anger that we Tea Party activists feel about our bloated federal government.

It is not the only one though.

Here, John Conyers (D), a Congressman from Michigan practically endorses laziness and carelessness in the roles that Congressman play...

"The point to reading it, Mr. Conyers, is so that you can be responsible on what you are voting for!  You hypocritical, hack, politician!  Leave office already!  You obviously don't like to actually work!  It is bad enough that I get to pay your pension with forced taxation for the rest of my life!"

When all is said and done, Justice Scalia went up a notch on my "respectable" list.  The justices are not perfect and I think they do legislate from the bench sometimes, but this time, it was nice to see them point out the hypocrisy in this law and actually refer to the Constitution...

The Lesser of Two Weevils...

When I was a kid, my grandfather was my hero.  He had all kinds of little sayings that would just crack me up.  Sure, he indulged in the low-brow "pull my finger" humor (any good grandfather will), but he also could turn a phrase with the best of them.  One day I had a choice to make and I did not like either choice.  He told me, "You will simply have to pick the lesser of two weevils..."  It took me a second to catch the play on words.  After that it was a paroxysm of laughter. 

Well, my political friends - we are being told by fellow, well meaning Republicans that if we don't like Romney, at least it will be better than Obama.  In other words, on election day we will have the opportunity (once again) to pick the lesser of two weevils.  As long as you hold your nose, it won't smell as bad...

If you are like me, you are fed up with the media telling you who your nominee is eight months before the convention.  You are probably also sick of the half baked attempts by worthless candidates to model Dr. Paul's ideas in their speeches (and then claim that they have always held those positions).  But the thing I am most tired of is people telling me that they don't want to vote for someone unless they can win. 

The idea behind this is that if the "Republican" nominee is someone who "can win," then that is who you "can" vote for.  In other words, don't let that whole notion that you might vote for someone who actually knows the economy, has a workable plan to cut $1 trillion dollars from the budget in his first year and wants you to be able to choose how you want to live your life (read that: "Liberty") get in the way of you voting for "the guy who can win." 

Well, readers, let's see what a "winner" looks like (according to modern day pundits and uneducated voters)...

The current choice of a "candidate that can win" that the press is allowing you to have is (right now) Romney. 

Mitt Romney (R), a former Massachusetts governor, who often poses as a conservative has many views that are perfectly aligned with President Obama’s. During the 2008 Presidential election, Romney’s socialist views weren’t the focus of debate, but now that he is running for the Republican nomination in 2012, they're obvious when compared with Obama’s. In regards to gun rights, health care, and immigration laws, Mitt Romney seems to walk, talk and act like a socialist.

Mitt Romney signed a permanent assault rifle ban as Governor of Massachusetts. Romney has also stated that he would support a federal assault rifle ban as well. While he ran in 2002 for governor, this is what was on his own gubernatorial campaign website:

“Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.”

A cached version of his old website, which the quote was from, can be found here. Supporting the federal assault weapons ban is pretty odd for a conservative considering that even Obama has ruled out ever reinstating an assault rifle ban!

Romney is a staunch supporter of universal health care. As governor, Romney signed a bill into law that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance and mandated all businesses to provide insurance.  Isn’t government intervention into business contrary to free market principles? If it’s socialism when Barack Obama does it, it’s socialism when Mitt Romney does it. In fact, the Democrats have given Mittney Willard high praise and claim that they used it as inspiration for ObamaCare.  Simply put, “ObamaCare” is “RomneyCare”.

Maybe Mitt isn't your man...

Maybe it's Newt?  Newton Leroy Gingrich - more commonly known as "Newt" Gingrich. How does he qualify to be a conservative?  He doesn't!  Lets set aside that he was driven to resignation over dozens of ethics charges and incompetence... The man who broke his own “Contract with America” is by definition a "socialist."

Newt Gingrich as a US Congressman voted for the creation of the Department of Education. President Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate this department. The Department of Education recieved exceptional support not only from Newt, but from many noted socialists as well (including Jimmy Carter himself!).

Ronald Reagan was so "fond" of the Dept of Education he said this:

"The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education."

It was Gingrich who voted to give communist China “Most Favored Nation” status. Thanks Newt!  China, known for such uplifting atrocities as "The Tianenman Square Intervention," which highlighted a tank running over a protestor (I wonder how they would handle OWS?), now owns over $800 billion in United States debt according to a Department of Treasury Report in the 1st fiscal Quarter of 2009.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich voted to give $166 million of taxpayer money the IRS. This is a government agency that is there specifically to steal your money and redistribute it through government programs.  Newt claims to want to shrink government, but instead, expands it and supports the progressive income tax, which is one of the planks listed in the Communist Manifesto.

Remember NAFTA and GATT in the 1990s?  You can thank your little Maoist buddy Newt for that as well. Under a lame-duck session of Congress, Newt pushed for the unconstitutional North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, both of which removed power from the people of the United States and handed it over to an unelected and unsupervised group which mostly consisted of non-Americans. 

I won't even get into his pandering with Representative Nancy Pelosi for environmental protection...

"Oh...I wont vote for them - I am voting for Rick Santorum."  Well...Santorum has a fairly large batch of skeletons in his closet as well.  A closet that any Democrat would envy.  Let's look at Rick's closet...shall we?

- Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
- Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000.  Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12
- Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
- Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
- Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
- Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
- Voted to increase NIH funding by $700 million
- Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
- Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
- Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
- Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
- Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
- Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
- Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
- Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
- Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
- Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
- Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
- Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

And what does our Conservative Champ Santorum have to say on the issue of taxes?

- Voted against a flat tax.
- Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
- Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
- Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child health insurance.
- Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
- Voted twice for internet taxes.
- Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
- Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
- Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
- Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
- Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
- Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
- Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

The socialism of Rick Santorum is a blemish on the face of conservatism, small government and individual liberty.  He has no business claiming to be a "conservative."

So, what is it going to be?  Each of these candidates could give Obama a run for his money for the "Lenin - Most Improved Comrade" award.  They are no different than what we already have in office. 

I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils in this election.  Once again, I will vote my conscience and it will not be stained after election day 2012.  I will vote for the Congressman from Texas.  The principled and unyeilding Constitutionalist.  The "Good Doctor" himself - Ron Paul.

Will you be holding your nose on election day?  Or will you vote for a real change that will make this nation great again?

Why We Need a Brokered Convention

A brokered convention is where the presidential campaign season comes to a crescendo and there are not enough delegates won during the presidential primary and caucus elections for any one candidate to to get a majority, during the first official round of voting for the party's presidential candidate at its nominating convention. Once that first ballot has been cast and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered "brokered"; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of political arm twisting, bribery, and additional votes being cast. After this first vote resulting in no selection of a nominee occurs, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. That is the slightly plagiarized definition according to Wikipedia, anyway.  It is pretty close...

And here is where it is important to us - lovers of liberty.

Contrary to the numbers that are being blown about with every wind of hot-aired ranting by MSM talking heads, the delegate count being assigned to the candidates is only a "W.A.G." That is an acronym for Wild A#%ed Guess. Very few of the states are able to assign their delegates to the winner of the straw poll held on caucus night. And according to Ron Paul's campaign staff, there is every reason to believe that the delegate selection that occurred in many states does not reflect the true number of delegates loyal to the cause of liberty. In other words, it is very possible that Dr. Paul has many more delegates than the MSM would have you believe. And many of the delegates that have to vote for their state's straw poll winner, would be released to vote their conscience in a brokered convention. It is also very likely that many of those delegates are Dr. Paul's as well.

The last brokered Republican convention was in 1948 which led to the selection of Thomas Dewey as the nominee. Otherwise, the last time we came close to a brokered convention was in 1976...the Republican primaries gave President Gerald Ford a slight lead in the popular vote and delegates entering the Republican National Convention, but not enough delegates to secure the nomination. A brokered convention was predicted but Ford managed to receive the necessary support on the first ballot to edge Ronald Reagan. This is the last time a Republican presidential convention opened without the nominee having already been decided in the primaries. As you will recall, Ford was handily beaten by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the election that year.

OK...what does that mean for all of us? Well, you are already, no doubt, seeing all the talking heads and "Republican Leadership" (so-called...) telling the world how disastrous a thing it would be to have a brokered convention, since it would show all the fractures in the Republican Party and that the divisiveness would hand the Presidency back to BHO. "Oh, Lawd!!! If we don't violate our conscience and vote for who they tell us to vote for, the evil will continue! And it will be all our fault for not supporting the establishment!" Of course, this is all utter BS of the highest fertilizer quality. And if you are one of the "tens and tens" of readers who read this blog, then you are probably not swayed by the MSM rhetoric. For those of us who support liberty and the Constitution (namely, Dr. Paul), than what this means is that we have a lot of educatin' of the ignorant masses to do.

So, why do we need a brokered convention? Because it is the only shot we have at overthrowing the establishment's attempt to force a candidate that will continue the madness - it is the only real shot at the People having a voice in these matters. We have a very well oiled, grassroots machine running for Dr. Paul and we have invaded the caucuses and the political system in general. If we can make it to a brokered convention, our candidate has a very real shot at winning the candidacy. It will be the sucker punch to the Republican establishment it so richly deserves. Otherwise, Gingr-Santo-Romney, which is BHO with a different bumper sticker is what we will be stuck with. Make no mistake, to vote for Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney, is simply casting a vote for a Socialist in a different suit. They will be no different that Obama.

Could you imagine the looks on the faces of Brett Baier, Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh, Michael Steele and the rest of their ilk? I think that would be worth the price of admission alone...however, we are in the midst of a political revolution for the heart of this Republic. We need to push it to the end...all the way to Tampa.

So, go to http://www.ronpaul2012.com and donate generously to the cause of liberty during our "Give Me Liberty" money bomb and stay the course.  Your Republic is depending on you!

Give me Liberty!  Give me Tampa!  And give me a brokered convention...