Archive for the Retruthing the Debate Category

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  No Laura, Republicans want the entire bad law repealed.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 »

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 »

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 »

Obama Administration Plans to Ration Military Retiree Health Care

17. August 2010 by Satire V.

It might not look like it on the surface, but that appears to be the plan.  Defense Secretary Gates, as part of his personal lame duck session, is hoping to raise costs for the Tri-Care insurance plan that many military retirees depend on.

Gates’ assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Jonathan Woodson, has made statements before Congress indicating that rationing is definitely part of the plan.  As reported at DailyPress.com Woodson 

“referred to more cost-efficient “therapies” and addressing “waste in the way we deliver care because of the culture of medicine. And there’s opportunity to decrease the variability of care that might result in cost savings.”

This doesn’t take much reading between the lines.  This is politi-speak for rationing and lowering the amounts paid to Doctors for their services.  Tri-Care’s payments for services are already laughably low, and “decreasing the variability of care” aka lowering payments, will likely drive many Doctors and clinics out of military retiree care.

Raising premium payments is also a likely method that DoD will use to “cut costs”.  Obviously this cuts costs for DoD, but raises the costs significantly for retirees.  Military retired pay increases by a cost of living adjustment only.  These cost of living adjustments are part of the Federal budget process and are not guaranteed.  No connection has been previously made between the reduction in other promised benefits and the calculated cost of living change used to help determine COLA raises for military retirees.  This means that military retirees will very likely have their retired pay effectively reduced by the amount of Tri-Care premium increases.

How much will these premiums increase?  We don’t know yet.  What we do know is that we have made promises to our military retirees regarding medical care and retirement pay.  These promises are being broken almost daily by the current Congress.  Gates points out that medical care as part of the Defense budget will be approximately $50 billion next year.  This is a huge amount of money, but Congress was willing to spend more than that to pay off teacher’s and other State-level public workers (unions) as an “emergency” spending bill.

Which is the greater emergency for the Federal government?  Saving the pay of State workers to whom no promise was made, or saving the promised benefits of those who put their lives on the line for this Country?

Seems like a pretty easy decision to me.

Posted in Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

DFA, the Health Care Debate, and the Sound Of One Hand Clapping.

5. August 2009 by Satire V.

Once again, someone has passed on the Democracy For America email below to me.  The hypocrisy rampant in this one is nothing short of astounding.  As usual, the left believes the debate on the issue should be the sound of one hand clapping.

You may have seen it: An angry mob in Texas carrying fake tombstones with Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s name on it. Signs with an “SS” symbol on it calling Obama a Nazi. A cardboard version of Rep. Frank Kratovil hanged in effigy outside his district office by “Teabaggers” in Maryland.The Right-Wing Scream Machine is back. Who are they? So-called “Birthers” who think President Obama’s birth certificate is a fake. “Teabaggers” who don’t want to pay taxes for schools, police, or roads. And they’re backed up by insurance industry and right-wing funded front groups who are encouraging Republicans to disrupt healthcare townhalls anyway they can throughout August. Their goal isn’t to debate or get their voices heard. Their goal is to stop any kind of civil dialogue. That’s not how we enact thoughtful reform. It’s important that we aren’t drawn into their divisive tactics and discredit our broad-based bipartisan support for real reform. And it’s up to us to make sure they don’t drown out America’s support for the choice of a public healthcare option. Will you join me in taking the high road and sign the Public Option Action Pledge?

ADD YOUR NAME AND SPREAD THE WORD NOW

 As reported by TalkingPointsMemo, here’s an outline of their tactics from a recently circulated right-wing plan: “pack the hall… spread out” to make their numbers seem more significant, and to “rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation…to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early… to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda…stand up and shout and sit right back down.” In response, I’ve signed the Public Option Action Pledge.Will you join me? SIGN THE PUBLIC OPTION ACTION PLEDGE RIGHT NOW It’s going to be a long, hot August. But we’re going to keep our cool and represent the 76% of Americans who support one of President Obama’s top priorities — a public health insurance option. Working together, we’ll beat the Right-Wing Scream Machine and pass healthcare reform that gives America a choice. Thank you for everything you do.

-Jim
Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America

I suppose it would be best to start with the outright lies in this email, and work our way down to through the misrepresentations and finish at ridiculous.

First, the assertion that 76% of Americans support a public health insurance option is completely unsupportable, and untrue (otherwise known as a lie).  DFA has been using this same number since the start of this effort to wrest control of America’s medical decisions from the individual.  Assuming that this number was ever correct, the tide has been turning against ANY public option in every published poll.  One wonders where this 76% number comes from.  Keep wondering, as DFA never backs up such statements with verifiable data.

Next, the ‘talking points memo’ paragraph is typical liberal-speak, and obvious misrepresentation.  Notice where quotation marks are included and excluded in this paragraph.  You aren’t actually supposed to notice that.  For example, “pack the hall…spread out” followed by a phrase that is meant to be taken as part of that suggestion, ‘to make their numbers seem more significant.’  Also notice the fact that no complete sentence is quoted.  This is a sure sign of words taken out of context.  Finally, once again, only a vague reference.  That seems strange when linking to a web post is so simple. 

Maybe we should link to some of the more interesting points on their web site, even though they take steps to try to prevent copying and pasting to provide quotes from their sites.  Here’s an example.  The same TalkingPointsMemo.com that DFA is so pleased with, provided this little gem.  “Assign people to greet the media and to stay close to reporters both as they enter and leave the event.  It’s important that you take away right-wingers (sic) opportunities to talk with reporters by making sure that your staff or leaders are in constant contact with media who attend.”  (emphasis added)  This is how easy it is to link to source documents, the text can be found in context here.  Interesting that organizations such as this want to make sure that the counter-socialist message does not get out.   They know that the more people are exposed to the truth, the more support they will lose.

 Now to the ridiculous.  More accurately, childish, disgusting, and ridiculous.  The repeated use of the term ‘teabaggers’ by the left, what apparently passes as ‘civil dialogue’ to them.  Many of them feign ignorance of the common meaning of this term.  Although it is too vile to describe, most of us, and certainly they, know this disgusting definition.  Anderson Cooper wasn’t chuckling at his own wit when he used the term, and the intent is clearly to try to connect those with a legitimate concern over runaway taxation with an immature and grotesque practice.  They are the only ones laughing about this sick joke, and are exposing their character through this behavior.  This lack of character goes hand-in-hand with the lack of reason and consideration that should inform their arguments.  Name calling is debate to them.

One additional point:  the left’s talking points regarding the backlash on this freedom-stealing bill have included the hackneyed accusations of shrillness, and accusing the protestors of being shills for right-wing corporate money.  The right has rarely engaged in shouting down opponents, a by-the-book tactic of the left.  Unlike the left, most of us on the right feel an obligation to work for a living.  We believe that working to pay our way is the obligation of every able-bodied individual or head of a family.  To put it simply, we don’t usually do protests, because we have jobs.  Think about how upset, how angry, how concerned we have to be to take our vacation time, or time off without pay, to attend these meetings.   The organizations that are involved with providing Conservatives with the information about where and when these town-hall events will take place are truly the definition of grass roots.  There are no Soros-like billionaires supporting these protests.  When Conservatives take this kind of action, and arrive in significantly larger numbers than the statists that ARE paid to protest, it should be a wakeup call to our elected representatives. 

Jim and Howard Dean and the other statists at DFA aren’t interested in a debate on this issue.  They are typical of the leftist mindset.  If the right is in power, it is an aberration and the will of the people is meaningless.  They believe that the people’s wishes have been and will be ignored unless they protest everything the right tries to do.  If their friends are in power, it is the will of the people, and the right better shut up and sit down.  The people have already spoken and your protests are therefore meaningless.

We know better.  Now is the time to ensure that our government remains a government of the Constitution, and of the law.  This is not the time to be silent.

Satire V

Posted in DFA Watch, Its Only Hypocrisy If The Right Does It, Retruthing the Debate | Print | 1 Comment »

Dear Senator, aka Questions On The Health Care Debate

16. July 2009 by Satire V.

The brain trust over at DFA has come up with a series of questions they want their thralls to pass on to their Senators regarding the health care reform debate.

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?

(Thank you to the friend that forwarded the email.)

There are obvious problems with the thinking (or lack of) that went into this group of questions.
Number one; the repeated reference to a “public option.”. This is a knowingly dishonest description. I will use the more common term “lie” from here on. This is not an option. We will not have a checkbox on our W4s asking whether it is OK with us to take some additional money from our paychecks to fund this monstrosity. Therefore, our only options are whether to pay for government health care alone or whether to pay for government health care for others and an additional amount out of pocket for actual health care.
Even the word “public” in that description should be considered a lie.  There is very little that is public regarding this Congress and Presidential administration.  BO thinks things as trivial as his birth certificate are worth spending hundreds of thousands to keep secret, and that the people don’t have any right to know how much he spends on a date to Broadway.
Number two; the following clause is loaded with more lies: “national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government.”  “National,” in this case means that States rights will be trampled or ignored.  “Available everywhere” is missing the implied words “and to everyone” ensuring that benefits won’t be limited to only the legal residents of this country, and perhaps the most telling “accountable to our government.”  The DFA shows their Socialist pedigree with this one. Perhaps they need to be reminded that the government is supposed to be accountable to the people of this Country, not another arm of the government.  We the people are supposed to be the arbiters of what is acceptable from any government entity or program.

In light of the useless nature of the questions suggested by DFA, I decided it would be more productive to ask the following instead:

As a constituent, I have a few questions I’d like you to answer. I’m looking for answers to these questions specifically so I can understand clearly your position.

Do you support substantive tort reform (limitations) as part of healthcare reform?

Will you pledge to stop using the misleading term public “option” as regards the current health care bill to ensure integrity of the legislative process? If ANY tax dollars are used to pay for a program, it ceases to be an option for any taxpayer.

Will you pledge to use ONLY the government program under this bill for yourself AND your family if you vote for this legislation and it passes? This question is crucial. Your answer to this will reveal how strongly you believe that massive government involvement will improve health care.

As a constituent, I would really like to know the answers to these questions. Please respond to these questions in writing via email.

Thank you.

In particular I believe that we should all be asking our Senators and Representatives the last question.  Please take the time to ask questions of yours regarding this issue.

Satire V

Posted in DFA Watch, Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

The Myth of the Objectivity of the Press (and why objectivity is not such a good thing)

27. September 2008 by Satire V.

Much has been made of the bias of the of the press the last few years.  There is absolutely no question that there is a significant bias in the press.  Although this exists on both the left and the right, there is also no question that the vast majority of it is to the left.

Much of the press makes claims to objectivity and worries over accusations of bias.  This is a blatantly disingenuous concern, as most of the members of the press are not generally concerned about unbalanced reporting, but only of being perceived as biased.  The question is, why?  Although they prescribe to a code of ethics, this code doesn’t even mention objectivity anymore and never should have.  So what are they so concerned about?

Objectivity was not the goal of the early English newspapers.  The New England Courant, published by James and then Benjamin Franklin, was far from objective.  Why should any modern newspaper or television news program be objective?  There is no mention of the objectivity of the press in the Constitution, only the freedom of it.  This constitutional right was included by the ratifiers of our Constitution to ensure that political speech challenging the government would not be suppressed.

The problem we face today is the myth of objectivity.  If we foolishly take the word of the liberal press when they make their claim of objectivity, we set ourselves up to accept a severely subjective viewpoint as objective.  What we should be demanding is a simple admission that no news organization is objective.  This way lies the nearest approximation of truth.  If each news organization was honest about its bias, we would at least know that we are listening to or reading the news coming from that slant.  The reason most news organizations and reporters don’t want you to be aware of their bias, is that you won’t accept their reporting as unadorned fact.  That might lead you to dangerous activities such as thinking for yourself; not something they want you to do.

I don’t even want objectivity from the press.  Almost no journalist is capable of removing their personal preconceptions from their reporting, so I would rather know what they believe.  How much easier if the news organization only hires those that share those beliefs and thus makes it clear to the consumer which way the wind blows.

Contrary to what most liberals claim, Fox News doesn’t make any claim to objectivity.  Their tagline is ‘fair and balanced.’  Fair to those who have 2 pounds of trash land on their driveway 7 days a week that is so liberal it almost slides off the left side onto the lawn.  Fair to travelers that are abused by CNN in most airports without their consent, and without airsick bags in the terminal.  Fair to those of us looking for news from a non-liberal point of view, and finally finding it.  Unfortunately, balance is nearly impossible to achieve in the journalistic climate of today, but at least the scale tips a little less to the far left with Fox on the air.  I congratulate them on the more honest approach.  At least I know that their view is from slightly right of center.  Talk radio is an even better source of news.  I have no doubts about where Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, and others stand.  They tell you very clearly exactly where that is.  I can listen knowing which way that news leans.

To talk radio, Fox news, and to many bloggers out there; Thank you for your honest admission of your political and social bent.

To most of the rest of the press; own up to your bias.   I don’t mind that you have it, just that you choose to hide it under the myth of objectivity.

Posted in Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

“Commit” to Change

18. September 2008 by Satire V.

The introduction of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential pick seems to have reopened the debate on abortion.  The liberals are very upset at the prospect that at least one and possibly two people that believe life is sacred should occupy the highest seats in the Executive Branch.  The lies started even before Sarah set foot on the Republican platform.  Cries that McCain intended to take away a woman’s “right” to choose and overturn Roe v. Wade were echoing from the paid slots on radio and TV.
The problem from my point of view is that we are still allowing the liberals to frame and define this debate and others.  It is time to re-inject truth into these disagreements, and we should start by correcting the language that we use to describe what abortion really is.
We don’t refer to a thug ‘performing’ a mugging or an assualt.
We don’t say that a murder was ‘performed.’
We should similarly no longer say that abortions are ‘performed.’

Let’s use the language that fits reality.  If we believe that abortion is wrong, and is the taking of an innocent life, we should use the accurate term and say that Doctors commit abortion.
When we talk about the horrific numbers of children killed in this way, we should say how many abortions are committed.

Let us be honest where they are not and use terms that, while hard to hear, are fully accurate.

Posted in Retruthing the Debate | Print | No Comments »

|