H/T to Riley from Virginia Virtucon
“Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”
Does it strike anyone else that union rhetoric is typically virulent and without any value whatsoever?
Ok, while I don’t consider myself to be a “birther” I believe that it was key to be certain in order to maintain constitutional integrity. However, now that Obama’s citizenship has been confirmed, let’s move on and make this about ideas. Conservatives should know that we have the superior ideas and there is no need to bring gimmicks into the fray.
First, we know that government interference in health care will only lead to lesser quality and rationing of care. Bureaucrats have less interest in our personal health than in their ability to “streamline” the process. This is ironic because there is no such thing when dealing with the federal government.
Second, we know that bailouts, in any form, are destructive and subsidize failure. The bailouts give no incentive for improved production and ethical management. To the contrary, bailouts do nothing but incentivize poor management. Solution: repay every red cent of the multi-billion dollar corporate welfare program to the taxpayer and slash entitlements.
Third, we know that Obama’s judicial philosophy is predicated upon race. Judge Sotomayor’s well publicized “wise Latina” remark is proof positive that racial discord will be hallmarks of the Obama judicial appointments. The rule of law has been replaced by La Raza… return our government to its constitutional mandated limits which starts with Judges who are dedicated to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
These are but three areas where conservatives have the superior ideas. Oh, wait, nothing is superior anymore, we don’t want the poor politicians to have low self esteem. I say, throw the bums out.
Yes, sophisticated reader, I watched Hee Haw for years with my grandfather. I came across this little snippet. Wonder what Junior Samples would say about the Democrats now?
Considering his recent vote for Waxman-Markey, I’d say most clear thinking Americans would lean toward the latter, but that’s just my opinion, or is it? Here’s a brief round up of my blog brothers and sisters in the ODBA and their take on Rick’s betrayal of the industry that puts him in office.
Kilo (who has strong ties to coal) has this series of posts about Boucher’s betrayal: here, here and here
Jerry, at From on High blog, has this post that opens the salvo against Rick Boucher’s betrayal of coal miners in the Ninth and this revealing an example of the distrust and unhappiness that Boucher’s action is beginning to bring about.
Alton, at Eschew Obfuscation, has this truthful look at the realities of 21st century strip mining. With very few exceptions any more, coal companies leave the sites better than when they found them.
And, at the risk of being egotistical, please take a look at my post concerning Waxman Markey and the Ninth District. The numbers are staggering.
Does Barack Obama really think that throwing away billions of American taxpayers’ hard earned dollars has done anything constructive? I suppose so according to this snippet. Coupled with the fact that the Waxman-Markey cap and tax regime that just passed the House, the question now becomes, does Barack Obama really know what he’s doing or is he just following George Soros’ instructions? (By the way, Move On believes the Waxman Markey bill does not go far enough.)
This is what the staff of the House Judiciary Committee is paid to do? This is 487 pages of leftist pabulum that seems more at home in a Che Guevara documentary than it does in an official document of the United States government. I know this has been out for a while, but I’m starting to read it and I have to be honest, this report is pejorative and contains little substantive contribution to any conversation about the Bush presidency. At the very least, a less pejorative title would be in order.
UPDATE: Erick at Red State,has this take on the Spender-in-Chief’s speech in Cairo. It appears that I’m not the only one who thinks this speech is an open door to attack the United States.
In his much ballyhooed speech in Egypt, BHO laid the frame for what? International peace? Nope. Rapprochement with Muslims? Yes and no. What he mainly accomplished was a rhetorical message of, “Come attack us again, you can take the farm.” Don’t believe me? Hear now, the Obamessiah:
In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," said the president, who recalled hearing prayer calls of "azaan" at dawn and dusk while living in Indonesia as a boy.
Colonialism? That smacks of communist propaganda does it not? Suddenly BHO is a Cold War veteran speaking with authority on the issue? Please. His responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam? Oh, here’s the truth, our President is an apologist for Islam.There is every indication that Obama will give the farm away to appease the radical elements of Islam. Oh, but he flip flops even within his own speech:
At the same time, he said the same principle must apply in reverse. "Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."
Like many on the extreme left, the President does not even have the courage to stand on his convictions. This speech will only embolden those radical elements of Hamas, Al Qaeda and others who would strike at the very heart of the United States. I’m embarrassed to say this, but this guy is an amateur.
I’ll include the entire email regarding this meeting with Rick Boucher and his belief in the murder of the pre-born. I know the men involved with this program, Fighting for Life in the Ninth, and they are all men of integrity and humility.
Reflections on the Meeting with
Congressman Boucher
As many of you are aware, we were able to secure a meeting with Congressman Rick Boucher this past Tuesday (May 26, 2009). The nature of the meeting was primarily to address the issue of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and the congressman's support of this bill. Unfortunately, the meeting did not go as we had hoped. Mr. Boucher was very clear as it pertained to his stance on the abortion issue. Sadly, it is a stance that a godly minded individual cannot support. He made it abundantly clear that he is a pro-abortion congressman and one that is committed to upholding and defending the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States). He gave no denials as to his 100% pro-abortion voting record and also offered no apologies for it. This is something we deeply regret. The Scriptures clearly define life as beginning at the moment of conception (Exo. 21:22-23; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41, as well as others). Aborti on then is the taking of life after it has begun. This is a position that the congressman made clear he will not accept.
In all actuality, Mr. Boucher did not really want to address the abortion issue at all, but rather his attention was on one aspect of FOCA. It has been the contention of Fighting for Life in the 9th(FFL9) that one of the risks of FOCA is that it could potentially open the door for lawsuits to be filed against hospitals and health care workers that refuse to perform abortion services. Mr. Boucher expressed that he opposes and would oppose such measures and was concerned that he had been misrepresented on this particular point. It is not the goal of FFL9 to misrepresent anyone. Where we regret that Mr. Boucher feels this way we do not believe this has been the case. Mr. Boucher acknowledged that FOCA needed more specific language in order to protect health care workers and hospitals. Where we respect and agree with the congressman's position that federal funding should not be cut from those who refuse abortion services, one has to wonder if there is no risk for such happening if FOCA were to be passed (as the congressman asserted early in the meeting), why then is there a need for more specific language? If there is more specific language needed, does that not imply then that the potential is therefor such consequences?
In addition, the congressman attempted to lead us to believe that FFL9 is the only group making such an assertion as to the implications of FOCA. This is not true. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has also been very outspoken on this very issue. This is significant because not only has the USCCB performed extensive legal analysis but it also expresses the official view of the Catholic Church (something the congressman expressed was different from FFL9's interpretation of FOCA). Notice the following statement: "The combined impact of these various provisions is likely the invalidation of a broad range of state laws if challenged under FOCA, including. . .laws protecting the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and hospitals, if those create even minimal delay or inconvenience in obtaining an abortion or treat abortion differently than other medical procedures" (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/ FOCA/analysis.pdf). Clearly, FFL9 i s not the only group concerned about FOCA's potential consequences.
This issue on health care workers and hospitals was the main thrust of the meeting due to the fact that the congressman was uninterested in having serious dialogue on abortion itself. We regret that more time could not be spent on this issue in particular. Again, it is not the goal of FFL9 to misrepresent anyone, only to present the facts as we (and others) understand them. I hope that through our conversation we have motivated the congressman to take steps to provide protection for health care workers and hospitals, but we would still oppose FOCA. The godly minded individual must oppose any measure that would further and expand abortions in this nation (which is what FOCA will do if re-introduced and passed).
Certainly, we wish the meeting would have gone differently but the battle is not lost. We must keep pressing forward. It is clear where Congressman Boucher stands and that he needs to be reminded that he is to represent the views of the 9th district of Virginia, not his own personal feelings. As Americans we are guaranteed by our Constitution the right to hold an opinion; however, it is the opinion of the Almighty God that matters most. It is His will that we must strive to keep promoting in an age of godlessness. It does seem at times that we are fighting an uphill battle, but let us be motivated by the words of the great Apostle Paul when he wrote: "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Gal.6:9).
Another reason that Rick Boucher does not deserve to represent the Ninth District of Virginia. The only reason why he continues to do so is that he is in the back pocket of Cecil “I Own Rick Boucher” Roberts and the UMWA. These creeps only care about lining their own pockets, not the hard working men and women they purport to represent. Shame on you Rick Boucher, shame on you indeed for believing in the murder of innocent life.
H/T to the Examiner:
According to this post on the OFFICIAL White House website blog, he could be. Speech seeking to influence direction of the Administration and others on the so-called Recovery Act will be subject to new restrictions.
Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.
If you are opposed to the Recovery act and you are a citizen, your First Amendment rights are being curtailed by Executive Fiat. In other words, he’s being a little baby about this. Too much opposition? “I’ll just change the rules.” This man is dangerous and makes no bones about it, he’ll not be satisfied until the Constitution is in shreds and he can make the government “in his own image.”
NOTE: FBI, DHS, and whatever other law enforcement agency who reads this site, take NOTE: I WILL NOT SIT DOWN, I WILL NOT SHUT UP, I WILL NOT BACK OFF AND I WILL NOT LET ONE MAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN TALK ABOUT.
I will bloody well write about what I want to write about. Let’s see them come stop me.
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli told a U.S. bankruptcy court on Thursday that Iacocca's pension would be among the obligations Chrysler will no longer have to pay if it gets bankruptcy court approval to sell itself to a "New Chrysler" to be owned by its union, the U.S. and Canadian governments and Fiat SpA (FIA.MI).
Well, I won’t be buying Chrysler or Government Motors. Looks like Ford will be getting my business for a while. While some may see the restructuring of Chrysler as a God send, I say its a load of crap. Don’t believe me, how many of us could see this coming with the advent of Government Motors.
Meanwhile, the Kool-Aid is starting to take effect. The American people have started to lose all sense of reality, caught up in the hope and change that the Spender-in-Chief has sold them. You suckers!!!!
In this press release, Cecil “I Own Rick Boucher” Roberts comes to the Feckless One’s defense citing “protections” in the Waxman bill. How does cap and tax protect coal jobs Mr. Roberts?
“Coal is America’s most abundant energy resource. We have more coal than any nation on earth. As the debate over climate change has evolved over the past two decades, we have not only insisted on the preservation of coal mining jobs, but argued as well for the essential part that coal plays in sustaining our national economy and ensuring our independence from foreign oil.
“While we still have concerns about this legislation, it contains many items that Rep. Boucher and others worked hard to attain and which we support, including over $100 billion to advance and deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
The fact of the matter remains that cap and tax will create a huge bureaucracy to handle the trade of “allowance” in carbon emissions and will effectively create a National Energy Tax which will discourage the use of coal and other sources of energy which are readily available to us now. This cap and tax system, by Obama’s own admission, will cause electricity rates to “skyrocket.” Don’t believe me? Hear now the Spender-in-Chief:
This is simply about partisan politics and the fact that Rick Boucher is owned and funded by Roberts and the UMWA. I suggest that Mr. Roberts read HR 2300, the American Energy Innovation Act to see the right approach to energy solutions for the United States. Until he does, he remains clueless as to what Americans really want.
They’ve got their britches in a bunch because a private university chose not to recognize an organization which is contrary to the mission statement and religious views of the university. Boo hoo!!! What about the First Amendment rights as applied to Congressman Tom Tancredo (and other conservatives) who was almost assaulted on the University of North Carolina’s campus? Here’s the video, judge for yourself. For the record, each time a conservative group is recognized on public university campuses, they experience “free speech” in the form of vandalism of privately funded conservative newspapers.
And just so no one will accuse me of being a Fox soldier, here’s coverage from CNN:
The Spender-in-Chief is using some pretty creative arithmetic to justify a $108 billion increase in funding the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. The increase is attached to a supplemental war funding bill. The creative math?
In order to make this politically feasible, the administration has argued that the true cost of this $108 billion contribution to the IMF is actually zero. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not accept this argument, but presented a figure that is very low; as this goes to press it is reportedly at $5 billion.
The rationale? We’re spending another $108 billion of taxpayers’ money, but it really isn’t costing us anything. Geez. This guy really believes that we’ll buy that. When the debate really heats up on this, remember this equation:
$108 billion = Zero dollars
I suppose there should be no surprises. Now, the acknowledgment comes of what we all knew would happen.
If the duly appointed CEO couldn’t do any better than what has happened, what makes us think that the government can do any better? WE have to stop drinking this guys Kool-Aid or we will all go down with the ship.
With all due respect to Jerry at From on High, I thought I would give you this little tidbit from Morton Blackwell, Republican National Committeeman for Virginia. This is taken from a speech made in Louisa, VA on November 12, 2008, (after the election)
Behind Obama’s smiling mask of unity and hope there lurks a leftist ideologue who knows very well the changes he wants to make in America. And inside that ideologue I believe there lives a leftist demagogue.
Spanky has this interesting post about Madam Speaker’s knowledge of waterboarding. What did she know, and when did she know it? Sound familiar? It should.
Maybe Warren Buffet, who owns a big chunk of this money losing rag knows that people are not reading it anymore, because it is akin to Pravda?
Tell us what you really think there Spanky!!! Don’t hold back.
A month ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Rick Boucher asking that he stand up against the monstrosity that is known as our federal government. I asked that he stand up and vote no against additional bailouts for banks, automakers, etc. I also asked that he prove to the Ninth District that he “wasn’t in Cecil Roberts’ back pocket” (that is a direct quote from my letter) and vote NO on the Employee Free Choice Act. Having worked in a Congressional office in DC, I fully understand the hectic pace and long hours that are worked. However, his staff has failed to respond to my letter.
Everyone says, Boucher has excellent constituent service and that is why he keeps getting elected. Hogwash!! A hard copy letter is still the only way to get attention in these offices. I took the time to write a letter and still no reply? The citizen-lobbyist is an effective tool when it comes to “putting their feet to the fire”, or so I thought. Rick Boucher is interested in little more than pandering to the UMWA and mortgaging the future of the United States.
I’d suggest writing to your Congressman and letting him know how you feel and what you expect of him/her. Just don’t expect a reply from Rick Boucher if you disagree with him.
In today’s Opinion Journal, former Presidential nominee George S. McGovern lays the case against the EFCA and I must admit, I have to agree with him. Those old enough to remember that McGovern ran as a liberal and was absolutely demolished by Nixon in 1972. Friends, Mr. McGovern is right.
My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.
When it comes to labor disputes, both parties should be guaranteed a real chance for compromise under the joint economic threat of contract breakdowns. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO for nearly 30 years before retiring in 1979, had it right in condemning mandatory arbitration as "an abrogation of freedom."
Even though he has this right, notice his one phrase “Despite my trust in government” There’s the rub for most conservatives. We don’t trust government to do things that we can do for ourselves. Should I decide to join a union, it must be my choice and those of my co-workers, not an open-ended process that leaves too much room for coercion and for the removal of individual liberty and autonomy. The binding arbitration clause in the bill is almost as scary as the destruction of the secret ballot.
In another example of old school, pork barrel politics, Boucher and the usual suspects (Warner and Webb) announce $11 million for a water resource project at the John H. Kerr Reservoir and Philpott Reservoir. It never ceases to amaze me that our politicians in Southwest Virginia continue the old Byrd style pork games that made Byrd so popular, almost everything is named for him in WV.
With all due respect to Congressman Goodlatte’s proposal to scrap the Internal Revenue Code, spending reform must be the first priority. After that, abolish the Fed and return a hard currency system to its rightful and Constitutional authority, Congress. Then and only then can we think to undertake reform of the deeply flawed and unconstitutional income tax.
As to Mr. Perriello, I will leave comment on his actions to the voters in his district.
This, from Insideronline.org is the straight up unfiltered truth about card check. Give a listen if you have a few minutes.
NOTE: Read this from the Heritage Foundation. I’ve always believed in the sacrosanctity of the secret ballot, both in electing political leaders, AND in the workplace.
