Author Archive

Daily (Socialist) Kos Author Attempts to Think; Fails Miserably

12. February 2012 by Satire V.

Laura Clawson at the Daily Kos thinks that Republicans are engaging in a “war on women” Her reasoning is the desire by many Republicans to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, and not to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  She also stupidly believes that Republicans are pushing to remove a requirement for health care providers to provide birth control as part of health insurance.  No Laura, Republicans want the entire bad law repealed.

The problem with the birth control provision of Obamacare is that it violates the moral standards of religious institutions that provide health benefits to employees. The Violence Against Women Act requires large expenditures to provide services through Federal Law Enforcement that are not in any way Constitutionally supported. If she understood the limited role of the Federal Government laid out in the Constitution she might know that.

This is not a war against women, it is a war against out of control spending. Laura, you and your friends are welcome to spend all of your own money, every penny preferably, providing birth control to whomever you want. You are also free to encourage State and Local Government to provide the same services that are currently under the Violence Against Women Act.  The Federal Government can then concentrate its Law Enforcement efforts on interstate issues of violence such as crossing State lines to either commit criminal acts or to flee punishment.

Do Dems EVER argue any point honestly?  Not in my experience, and I have been watching a long time. Maybe Clawson should try an argument that isn’t quite so full of holes next time.

Posted in Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

Indiana Doesn’t Want Me, Lord I Can’t Go Back There

5. February 2012 by Satire V.

The Indiana Secretary of State, Charlie White, has been convicted of perjury, theft and v0ter fraud.  While his behavior is despicable and criminal, the most interesting thing about the story is the story itself. Honest people that read America’s left wing newspapers and international news services such as Reuters and AP will notice that when a Democrat is convicted of pretty much anything, the party name is either left out entirely or buried deep in the piece.

“Republican” is the eighth word in this Reuters story. Not surprising at all, but illustrative of what is so wrong with the main stream media in America.

Also interesting is that although it is in the piece for the careful reader, the fact that the only voter that was involved in the “voter fraud” was White himself is not clearly spelled out. He falsified address information which allowed him a stipend he was not entitled to, and voted in a special election based on his falsified address. This behavior makes me somewhat ill (coming from a Republican, it’s status quo for Dems), but Reuters wants the focus on the voter fraud headline, not the actual elements of his crime.

I have mentioned before, and still believe that the press was never meant to be unbiased in their beliefs. This selectivity in using party names is not a matter of bias however, it is an effort to hide the affiliations of the criminals on their side versus the right side.

Biased or not, reporters and editors, you should report the pertinent information up front about all public officials involved in criminal activity related to their positions!

Posted in Corruption Watch, Its Only Hypocrisy If The Right Does It | Print | No Comments »

Rhode Island Blues

22. November 2010 by Satire V.

Ah, the blue party strikes again.  Why are they the blue party anyway?  Shouldn’t they be red?

I scoured over 20 local news stories on this one.  Here’s one.

Finally found a mention of party affiliation for two of the “corruption in blue” crowd here.

Strange that I have to go to election results to even get a mention.  You can be confident that they are all Dems though, this is an overwhelmingly Dem city.

Posted in Corruption Watch | Print | No Comments »

New Jersey Devils

22. November 2010 by Satire V.

Here are a couple of interesting bits from New Jersey.  Three politicians named in corruption scandals in two news stories.  One party named, although the politicians were affiliated with both major parties.

Guess which party didn’t get named???

One Republican involved in corruption here

Two member of the unnamed party here (it’s the Democrats, just in case you were wondering)

Posted in Corruption Watch | Print | No Comments »

Rocky Mountain High? (updated)

3. November 2010 by Satire V.

I think the people here must be.

They elected Mayor Frickenstoopid as Governor.  That alone qualifies the electorate for a drug test, but there’s more:

They kept Ed Perlmutter, a non-Constitutional liberal, when the option to oust him was available.  A nicely framed picture of Red Rocks could do a better job in Congress.

They may have kept the idiot Bennett, the placeholder Senator with extreme liberal views and Obama’s most reliable toady.

They voted against Constitutional amendment 63, which would protect Coloradans from some of the excesses of the health care fiasco.

They didn’t throw out 3 very liberal State Supreme Court Justices, ensuring politically motivated court decisions for even longer.

There is more, but the people of this State seem eager to follow California into the abyss.  Although they did fire a couple of Congressional Representatives, and change the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer, the fact that they didn’t move farther to the right indicates a willingness to continue on the course of statism and accept the slide into an economic and social pit.

Coloradans, if you want to understand the course you failed to change, you only need to hold California up as a mirror.  That is where you are taking this great State.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Roll On!!

2. November 2010 by Satire V.

Happy as I am that the Republicans have taken the House, and many Governorships, I am almost more entertained by the attempts at spin by the Libs and the Rinos.

The libs are continuing to make their idiotic “anti-incumbency” claim, and that the people just aren’t patient enough to wait for the wonderful Dem agenda to take hold and save us from our economic woes.  Really Dems, we aren’t stupid.  Thank God that so few people fell for Obamination’s attempts to drop these problems on George Bush’s doorstep with his moronic “it took us ten years to get into this position”.

The Rinos are unfortunately, not much better.  If I hear one more of those losers saying that gridlock is not acceptable, I think I will scream.  The only options will be gridlock, or massive leaps into debt that would be even more devestating.

I’ll take gridlock any day!

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Sunstein, Respected Legal Scholar (By Whom???)

29. September 2010 by Satire V.

This video should tell you all you need to know about why Dems are bad for America:

Watch it here

I have transcribed Sunstein’s remarks for you below.

“Let me explain the division among Conservative legal thinkers.  Some Conservative legal thinkers, thinkers like Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas think that the Constitution means what it originally meant.  That means that we should understand the document by going into a kind of time machine and capturing the public understanding of the public that ratified the document a century, or more than a century ago.  So that is a very distinctive approach would involve quite radical changes in our existing Constitutional understandings, and Justice Thomas is entirely clear on that.  He’s voted to overrule the Supreme Court’s own precedents over twenty times.  On the other hand there are other Conservatives who are not in favor of going in the time machine, but who are skeptical of Liberal judicial activism in a way that would involve narrow, cautious, literally conservative rulings.  So Chief Justice Rehnquist was often a different – very different kind of Conservative from Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, though he voted with them.  Justice O’Connor was strikingly different than Justice – was is – strikingly different from Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia in the sense that Justice O’Connor likes stability and she doesn’t – she likes nudges, she doesn’t like earthquakes.  And when Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas asked for large scale movements in the law, especially when they asked for attacks on what the democratic branches did in the interest of recovering the original understanding; Justice O’Connor was not with them.  So this is a big split between literal Conservatives and those who believe that the Constitution’s best interpretation is very dramatically different from what we now have.”

Notice that he doesn’t refer to Conservative Constitutional scholars as scholars.  Conservative are merely “thinkers” in his mind (such as it is).

He is clearly espousing his idea that the Constitution should be reinterpreted to mean what Judges, and specifically liberal Judges want it to mean.  That we shouldn’t go back (we can do this just fine without a time machine, moron.  Historical documents exist) to the original understanding of the Constitution.   The Constitution was a contract between the States and their peoples that existed when it was ratified.  All States that have followed signed on to this existing contract.  It isn’t living and breathing any more than your mortgage agreement or employment contracts, Sunstein.
This “living and breathing” interpretation is pure idiocy for a number of reasons.

I already stated that the Constitution amounted to a contract between the States.  This contract was an agreement concerning limitations on the Federal government, and to some extent relations between the individual States.  You don’t change contracts without renegotiating the terms.  That is the purpose of the amendment process.  Doing so without limitations leads to either anarchy or totalitarian rule by the party in power.

Allowing a small group of unelected persons to “interpret” the Constitution to find rights not included, to find ANY Federal authority not spelled out, and to change laws at a whim is very bad business and not intended by the ratifiers.  What will you do Mr. Sunstein, when these interpretations don’t go your way?  What happens if Conservatives are in power for many years and appoint their own life long partisans?  Will your tune change then?  The Constitution must be looked at in it’s most literal form to prevent abuses by any side.  Conveniently for Conservatives, most believe in the original view.  Maybe that is why we know we are on the side or right in this.

A constitution not viewed as literally and originally as possible could just as soon not exist to begin with (and could soon cease to exist).  Without limitations on government, the government is all-powerful.  An unrestricted government can do whatever it wants to with you, your property, and even your life.  Welcome to monarchy.

The offense taken by Sunstein that Justice Thomas might “vote” to overrule previous Supreme Court decisions is not surprising.  This is not based on some respect for precedent, only liberal precedent.  Overturning mistakes made by previous Supreme Courts is part of the responsibility of the Court.  Failing to do so would be a violation of their oaths.

Does Sunstein interpret liberal Supreme Court rulings overturning laws at all levels as “attacks” on the democratic branches?  I doubt it.  Although I would guess he meant “Democratic” not “democratic.”

Why shouldn’t we have large-scale movements?  We should always immediately move as far as it takes to put the law back in line with the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.  We have been moving toward Marxism in increments, we need to move back in leaps if we want our Republic to survive!

In the end Mr. Sunstein, you are a Constitutional idiot.  There is no other way to describe those who believe as you do, and who don’t understand that the constitution of any country must be taken very seriously for that country to survive in it’s intended form.  The form of government our Constitution intended is by far the best ever conceived of, and neither you nor activist courts will be allowed to “interpret” it out of existence.

Posted in Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

Nogales NM Mayor Indicted

29. September 2010 by Satire V.

I checked 5 stories on this one.  By the third, I knew he had to be a Dem because there had been no mention of Party affiiation.  Guess what?  I was right!

See the story here.

Posted in Corruption Watch | Print | No Comments »

Finally, Something Good For Detroit!

13. September 2010 by Satire V.

Monica Conyers has reported to prison to begin serving her sentence.  See Detroit News article here.

My only question (OK it’s a two-parter):

Who actually believes that John Conyers didn’t know what his wife was up to and who was driving his kids to school, and why hasn’t he been prosecuted?

Maybe DOJ is just Holdering out for more evidence.

Posted in Corruption Watch | Print | No Comments »

I Didn’t Do It For You.

13. September 2010 by Satire V.

Over the years I have heard many current military members and veteran’s say something like this when confronted with leftists expressing their views:

“I, and my fellow veterans, fought for your right to express your views and to keep this Country free so that you always have that right!”

I served 20 years in the United States Army.  I served our Country in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.  I spent long months away from my family.  I didn’t do it so that leftists could express their ideas.

Mind you, I did swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  As such, I fought to defend this great Nation against the kind of political stupidity and freedom suicide that the left engages in.  I fought to defend the best system of government ever created by men on this Earth.  Nothing that the left believes in is compatible with our system or our Constitution.

If you believe in our Constitution, and that it was and is a binding contract between all the States in this Union;  If you believe in the right of each man and woman to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and give to those they wish to; if you believe in the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers; if you love your Country and believe that it is the greatest force for good; then I say to you:
I did it for the Constitution and the Nation, and by extension I did do it for you.

So, those of you on the left (as you don’t fit into the above group), I didn’t do it to defend your ideas.  I certainly didn’t do it to give you the freedom to dismantle the greatest Country on this planet.  I didn’t do it so that you could portray everyone you disagree with as hate-mongers, racists, and extremists.  I didn’t do it to give you the freedom to change a working “experiment” in Democracy over to a proven failure of Socialism/Marxism/Communism.  In short:
I didn’t do it for you.

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand, Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

| Next Entries »