Posts Tagged ‘democrat’

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The very first words of the very first amendment to the US Constitution. These words are very important. The founders understood over 200 years ago that the freedom to practice your religion, whatever it may be, or no religion, is essential to securing all other freedoms.

This is just as true today as it was then. That’s why it bothers me when people from all sides of the political spectrum are calling for the community center (which is mistakenly referred to as a mosque) to not be allowed to be built two blocks away from the former WTC site. These supposed lovers of freedom are calling for two of the most basic freedoms, freedom of religion & the right to private property, to be denied to a select group of people based on what happened nine years ago (yes, it was a tragedy) perpetrated by a small group of terrorists from a country not even remotely like ours.

And it’s not just happening in NYC. Just an hour or so from my house, a community center (also referred to as a mosque) is finding opposition to a planned expansion in Murfreesboro. The kicker? The group has had a community center in the county since 1997. The reason for the epansion is because they’ve outgrown their current facility. Luckily, despite the opposition, the expansion will be allowed.

This battle is being fought all over the country. Newt Gingrich says that we shouldn’t allow mosques in this country until Christian churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia (or something along those lines). Howard Dean says it’s an affront. He also says those doing the project in NYC are doing it in good faith (that’s a little contradictory).

The fact is that none of these projects are in violation of any zoning laws, they’re being built on private property, and are run by those who have proven to be good citizens. Why should we deny them their constitutional right to practice their religion, especially on private property?

Do you disagree with Islam as a religion? If so, why? Are you aware that Islam, Judaism, & Christianity share many of the same tenets? Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, & the angel Gabriel all appear in the 3 religions, among other figures.

But Muslims stone people to death, right? Well, it’s allowed under their laws, but the majority of Islamic nations have ceased this practice. And don’t forget, stoning was an acceptable punishment in early Christianity & Judaism. 

Look, we all have our differences. But the fact is they have the right to practice their religion, especially on their own property. We have no right to take that away. And when you insult their religion, you most likely insult your own (unless you’re an atheist).


“We need healthcare reform!” “We need a public option!” “We need single-payer!”

With the 1000+ page healthcare bill going through the House, we hear these sentences every day. As it stands, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the right to grab the power they’re reaching for. The only thing close to such a provision is the interstate commerce clause, but even that falls short.

With the federal restrictions keeping us from crossing state lines to purchase insurance, interstate commerce is not an issue. What the Democrats, Progressives, and liberal Republicans should have done if they were serious about universal healthcare, back when Clinton was president, was remove those restrictions. That would have given them the avenue they needed to get this bill passed, Constitutionally.

If they pass this bill, as it is written, it will be unconstitutional and subject to being found as such by the Supreme Court (not for a while, though, with the current makeup of the court). The Tenth Amendment clearly makes this a state issue. Remember: “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.”

Progressives do not like the Tenth Amendment. It goes against one of their fundamental beliefs, i.e. rights not explicitly denied by the Constitution to the United States are implicitly granted. Progressives are behind the healthcare “reform” being shoved down our throats. Hence the violation of the Tenth Amendment, which will ultimately be the downfall of the bill, if it’s passed in its current form.

I agree we need healthcare reform. But any reform needs to be within the Constitutional limits set forth by the founders.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Can someone please explain this to me? Obama  wants to cut $313 billion dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs to pay for health care reform. We’re gonna take money from health care to pay for health care? Isn’t this like the Fed buying Treasuries?

$110 billion will come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. $75 billion will come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs”. $22 billion will come from adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. But the most appalling thing in the article says that $106 billion will come from cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients. They assume those numbers of uninsured patients will decrease as health care reforms kick in. We’re going to take money for treating uninsured patients to pay for insurance for said patients? The money comes from the same place and goes to the same place. How is that a cut?

I read this in an article on Reuters (one of the few respectable news sources left), and I couldn’t believe it. Do they think we’re that stupid. Apparently they do, if you listen to Charlie Rangle. Reportedly, he doesn’t want us to concentrate on the cost of a single-payer health plan. He wants us to get used to the coverage first, then they’ll talk to us about the cost.

I am so sick and tired of these clowns in Washington telling us how we need to live our lives and what our money needs to go for. It’s time for a revolution. Not a French Revolution, but an American Revolution. Let me elaborate. Every two, four, and six years we have a revolution in this country…at the polls. No bloodshed. We peaceably voice our opinions and revolutionize this great country. Here’s a novel idea: instead of Democrats & Republicans, why not fill both houses with Libertarians and Independents? Democrats and Republicans are on the same team right now, with a few dissenters on both sides. This graph (which I drew, sorry for the poor quality) is exactly where we’re at right now: government_graphIs that where you want this country to be? If we keep giving them the power, then we’ll be all the way to the left, which is just as bad as all the way to the right. Here’s where we need to be:ideal_gov'tA little to the left, a little to the right: that’s perfectly fine. But when the pendulum swings to the extreme one way, it’s going to swing to the extreme the other way. Look what happened last weekend in the EU. Far right extremist groups won several seats because of the way the extreme left has been handling this crisis. So are you sure you want to keep giving the gov’t more power with health care, cap & trade, VAT’s (value added taxes), etc.?

When will the conservatives in Hollywood stand up and offer an opposing voice to the likes of Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, and others?

There are a few I know of, such as Kelsey Grammar, Angie Harmon, Gary Sinise, and Chuck Norris. There have been a few on Beck recently, like John Rich (formerly of Lonestar & Big and Rich), Jeff Foxworthy, Craig T. Nelson (that’s right, Coach is a conservative), and a few others. Is this everybody? Are the others afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of being black-balled?

If the media is going to take conservative-ism seriously again, these people need to stand up. Listen to what Mr. Incredible himself had to say about the taxation w/out representation:

Is there anyone else in Hollywood who has the guts to stand up for their conservative beliefs? If so, stand up and be counted.

Been doing a little research lately. Not too long ago I heard someone talking about the link between the KKK and Democrats, so I figured I’d check into that when I had time.

Turns out they were right, sort of. According to the TN Encyclopedia, the Klan was first organized by six Confederate veterans as a fraternity-style social club in late May early June in 1866. They got the name from the Greek kuklos (meaning band or circle) and the English clan. The KKK was a mock fraternity.

However, in 1867, as Republicans were recruiting newly freed black men, conservative Democrats saw this as a rallying point to protect the white conservative confederate way of life. They sought to drive Republicans, freed men, and their allies from the polls. Thus the KKK became a de facto arm of the southern Democratic party.

I know everyone knows the name Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was not, as popular opinion would have you believe, a founder of the KKK. He was, however, the first Grand Wizard. What they don’t tell you is that in 1869, he called for the disbandment of the Klan believing they had served their purpose.

It wasn’t until 1915 that the Klan was revived. In the aftermath of WWI, Scopes, the Red Scare, etc, many viewed the Klan as the protectors of traditional American values. This is the Klan we have operating today. This is a very short summation of the history of the KKK. If you want to know more, you should go to the link above.

So while many believe that the KKK is a right-wing extremist group, it would be more apropos to say it is and always has been a left-wing, but conservative, extremist group.

They say he flip-flopped. You say he caved. I say he listened.
Republicans are saying that even though Obama made the right decision in the end, he did it for the wrong reasons. Democrats are saying that we should have more transparency (which I agree with, but not in this instance).
I say he listened to his national security advisors and military leaders.obama

They don’t want the photos released. You do. I say don’t do it.
Republicans don’t want the photos released because they would be used as recruitment tools for terrorists and fuel hatred towards America.
Democrats say their civil liberties were violated so therefor the photos should be released.
I agree with the Republican argument, but I’ll also add that those responsible for the actions in those pictures have been investigated and punished accordingly so releasing the photos would accomplish nothing.

Why is this even an issue? When Obama’s own national security advisers say releasing the photos will put Americans in harms way and military leaders say it will put our troops in even more danger, what is there to argue about? Why am I stuck defending Obama, from the left and right? This is an awkward position for me. This is like the third or fourth time since his inauguration I’ve had to defend him, and I don’t even like him!

I believe he made the right call (you have no idea how hard it is for me to say that). If put in his shoes, seeing the intelligence he sees daily, what call would you make? That, unfortunately, is a question we can’t answer because we don’t  see the intelligence he does. This is a call I’m going to trust him to make. Hopefully he’ll classify the images so they won’t be leaked. And if they’re leaked before they’re classified, I hope the guilty parties pay a huge fine.