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 »

12. July 2009 by Satire V.

The Obamination displayed his worrisome level of all things America again in his recent CNN interview while in Ghana, reported by Fox News here.   Linking America’s past slavery issues with the genocide happening in Darfur and the Congo is only possible for someone completely unfamiliar with the facts of the institution in this country, or a person with a conspiracy theorist level of paranoia and logic mangling.

America gave up slavery a long time ago, due in some part to a civil war but largely due to the earnest efforts of dedicated people that recognized how evil it was (the Republican Party).   That period of our history has no connection to the atrocities that are being committed in these distant countries.   The horrors that are happening there are all about political power.  Murders, rapes, beatings, burnings, and many other terrible things are not being done because people were held in cruel bondage here hundreds of years ago.  These acts are committed for the purpose of gaining and maintaining political power.

The only common thread tying these events together is the willingness of people to harm those who are most like themselves.
Many of the slaves that were brought to America were members of African tribes captured by other rival African tribes and sold to slave traders.  The idea that white European slavers went into the jungle to capture blacks is not inaccurate, but is certainly not the whole story.  Often, they simply went shopping on the beach and were brought captured enemies by the capturing tribes.
Today, the genocidal activities in these African countries consists almost entirely of blacks killing, maiming, and raping other blacks based on tribal, political, and religious affiliations.  This time, white European involvement is even less significant.

It isn’t clear from the story who Obama believes needs the lesson in slavery as it relates to these other events.  It is my guess that he thinks this is needed for our schools.  American schools already dedicate a significant portion of available time to slavery in our Country.  I saw the entire Roots miniseries in class in 1977 or 1978.  Spending more time trying to make a tenuous and inaccurate connection to these other tragedies is neither helpful nor educational.

The ignoramus in chief has shown that regarding slavery, the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he lacks experience or credibility.

Just like in everything else.

Satire V

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand | Print | No Comments »

23. February 2009 by Satire V.

In keeping with the need to point out the hypocrisy of the left:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences decided to continue theire trend of granting their highest awards to those that meet their political agenda.  One of their shining stars decided to make the most of his soap box last night, and showed typical leftist hypocrisy in the process.

Sean Penn, receiving the Oscar for his portrayal of Harvey Milk, decided that he would use the presentation of his award to spotlight tolerance.  His tolerance of the protestors’ viewpoint that Heath Ledger’s portrayal in Brokeback Mountain had earned him a place in hell was very touching.  Although I don’t agree with the protestors, the response from Penn was just as intolerant.

Agree with the left and be declared progressive and enlightened, but disagree, and be labeled an intolerant bigot.

How very tolerant of them.

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

23. February 2009 by Satire V.

The first true salvos in the fight for control of the Repbublican Party have been exchanged.  Most political observers across the spectrum, from die-hard conservatives to the far-left have seen it coming.  The left has generally realized something that many on the right have not; this fight is about much more than who runs the Grand Ole Party.

The recent comments from Republican Governors have defined the debate pretty clearly.  On one side there are those such as Bobby Jindal, who believe that Conservatism is the best hope for the Party.  On the other side are those such as the governor of Florida that believe that we must broaden the base.

The answer, unlike many, does not lie somewhere in the middle.  The party needs to return to, and most importantly live, the ideals of the Conservative movement.  The desire to regain seats that have been lost in the last two election cycles leads some to believe that we must invite those with widely different views into the “big tent.”  The problem is not a lack of diversity in the Party, it is a failure to present, explain, live, and prove the ideals of limited government and fiscal responsibility.  Republicans don’t need to move to the center, we need to show America why it should move to the right.

This is not the time to water down our ideals to try to gain votes.  Although the last election cycle proved that Americans aren’t necessarily the clearest thinking voters in the world, the electorate is not stupid.  A party that doesn’t stand for anything will not appeal to much of anyone, nor should it. 

We as members of this party must explain to our neighbors, friends, and co-workers why liberalism will fail all of us in the long run.  We must teach our children why taking more and more wealth from those that create it makes most of us poorer.  We need to help others understand how increasing taxes and regulatory burdens on businesses causes them to send more and more jobs and corporate assets out of this country.  Most of all, we need to teach them the principles of Conservatism that will enable them to think through political and social questions and come to correct conclusions on their own.

Our children are learning knee-jerk liberalism in our public schools and by watching TV.  We must teach them to think for themselves, to resist peer pressure, and to challenge the liberal and socialist messages they are bombarded.with.  We should point out the hypocrisy of the left, and teach them to spot it on their own.  We must not let the left define fairness for us.  Our children should understand that they are the better judge of how to distribute any of the fruits of their labor, and that government rarely makes the right choices in this regard.

It is also up to us to ensure that the Party’s leaders are fully aware that watering down the principles that made us strong is not acceptable.  Contribute to the Republican Party, but be sure to let them know that you don’t want the money to go to candidates that move to the left.  Participate in local party meetings, and express your insistence that the party stand on principles.  We must hold our representatives to high standards and not allow them to violate the principles of responsibility and accountability.

The fight is on, and we must choose our side.  The center is not an option.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

23. February 2009 by Satire V.

The elections got me down.  I found it hard to write anything, even in the face of obvious targets.

 I suppose I should have said something when Obama decided that his first Executive Order would be to fund the killing of children in other countries.

I should have spoken up when Nancy Pelosi espoused ideas that would have made any Nazi eugenicist proud when she told us that birth control was economic stimulus.

 The passing of the stimulus package, which probably had many on the left weeping with joy about how Barack was going to stimulate them was truly a package of ammunition for any writer of the right.

 Unfortunately, it was just too depressing.  I have recovered enough though, and have decided that it is time to help move the Right in the right direction. 

So, onward…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

21. February 2009 by Satire V.

Howard Dean, unfortunately didn’t just go away.  Or maybe it isn’t so unfortunate.  With a few more spokesmen like him, the entire Democrat Party would probably become as irrelevant as he.  Where has “Dr.” Dean gone?  He is one of the leading lights of Democracy For America, which is quite possibly one of the most woefully misnamed organizations in a very long time.  Sadly, it is also one of the largest PACs in America today.  Hence the saying “never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  DFA members are the left of the left, the liberal’s liberals, and viewed by some as the Jackass’ Jackass.

I personally take exception to any group which believes that America is served by taxpayer funded health care, believes that a filibuster is a “procedural trick” (of course, only when Republicans use it), that the Democrat Party is too far to the right, that man-made climate change (even they had to stop saying “global warming”) is going to destroy the Earth, and that the war in Iraq damages the Country’s global moral standing.  DFA believes that showing a picture ID to vote is “draconian”, that card check creates a strong growing middle class, and that allowing terrorists to sue telecom companies for complying with the law is right.  We aren’t served by are groups such as this that despise America, the free market, individual liberty, and think that morals are flexible and “personal.”  Groups that think anyone should be allowed to vote (citizen or not) and that unions still serve the working class.

The Democracy tag is ludicrous.  This group insists on using scare tactics and lies when Dems are in the minority, and pressure tactics and lies when in the majority.  This is not Democracy, but it certainly doesn’t stop this group from using the name.

For America.  I’m not sure that really needs much comment, other than to say that if an organization is for
America, it shouldn’t be making daily efforts to undermine the Constitution and the will of the people.  (That’s all people, not the carefully selected groups used by the polling organizations that they use.)

DFA engages in name-calling of political opponents, and provides scripts for its members to call their Congressional representatives.  They regularly threaten Dems that don’t lean far enough left.  They act like bullies, and like bullies they need to be challenged.

I would suggest that it would be helpful for most Americans to sign up for their email distribution list so that they can see what these people are up to, but as DFA uses the total number of those receiving their emails as the number supporting their ideas for their pressure campaigns, I can’t advise it.

If you are concerned about whom these people are (and you should be), you can go on the DFA site and search out full members living in your area.  These are the people that you should fight on your PTA/PTIO or whatever parent teacher organizations serve your schools.  They should not be on your HOA boards, your local councils, your zoning boards, volunteer lists at your local schools, etc, but if they are there they should be challenged constantly.  These are radicals that will attempt to influence your children and your communities to accept their extreme liberal agendas, and circumvent your liberty for their Utopian idiocy.

Time for a new name, how about “Destruction For America”?

Posted in DFA Watch | Print | No Comments »

18. December 2008 by Satire V.

Barack Obama’s recent attempt at his administration’s promised transparency with reporter John McCormick revealed an interesting tendency on the PE’s part.  He occasionally engages in a practice sometimes referred to as “uptalk.”

Uptalk is the use of a rising inflection at the end of a statement.  This is normal for interrogatory statements, but not for declarative statements.  Although this practice is fairly common among Left coast residents, it is not the norm for the Midwest.  Also of note is that he doesn’t use this speech pattern very often.  In many speeches and interviews he ended his declaratives with the even inflection that denotes the completion of the statement.  When comfortable with the subject, or when interviewed by anyone left of Fox News, he rarely used uptalk.

Outside of those who use this speech pattern regularly, engaging in uptalk is potentially a sign of internal dissonance.  Most often, it indicates discomfort with, or unsureness about the statement being made.  Another common reason it comes out is that the speaker is unconsciously making a question out of the statement.  Think about when a child is questioned about doing something naughty, like the hand in the cookie jar.  When asked why or if he or she did it, the child will often try out answers, ending his or her statement with the rising inflection of a question.  Its as though the child is trying out the answer to see if the adult will bite.

I don’t think that I’m biting on this one.  Let’s see who left their prints on the Blagojevich cookie jar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. December 2008 by Satire V.

One of the more foolish sentiments declared by the left during the last administration under President Bush was “Dissent is Patriotic”.

The idea in and of itself is not particularly foolish; it was the thought process, or more accurately the lack thereof, behind it.

There is much hypocrisy in the statement, rooted in the beliefs of those who make it. Those most likely to use it and stick it on the backs of their cars are those least interested in dissent. I sought out discussion with some of these people, and they had no interest in any opinion other than their own. They attempt to characterize any ideas they don’t agree with as hate speech, thus justifying in their minds that the speaker should be censored. Typically, it is Conservatives that are far more tolerant of the speech of others.

Most of the media establishment voices the same ideas as the “dissenters”. There is no shortage of time, venue, or validation from old media and Hollywood of their views.  During the Democrat convention in Denver, I personally observed leftist protesters violating the freedoms of others by blocking streets without permits, while they were allowed to freely exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. The government of Colorado and Denver went to great lengths to ensure the freedoms of those who wanted to be heard.  Some of these poor muted souls even attempted to attack a crew from Fox News.  So, with the assistance of the government,  the collusion of the media, and while physically assaulting a legitimate news organization because it doesn’t report everything from a leftist perspective, the left has still come to believe that they have been silenced. They seem to have forgotten a basic tenet of this Country; that we are each equally free to express our ideas.  That doesn’t mean that the government has to change to suit whomever shouts the loudest.

This freedom means that if, for example, I want to say that the actions of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama lead me to question their patriotism, then that is my right.  My doubts don’t silence them, or any other person who speaks out against the defense of our Country.   I know these people don’t have the best interest of the Country at heart, and are therefore by definition not Patriots, but still they are free to speak.

Now the Democrats and others on the left are talking again about the “fairness doctrine.”. This doctrine has as its goal, the silencing of one side of the political debate. Liberals have a long history of trying to shout down or silence those who disagree with them. Although the left has gone to extreme measures to demonize and criminalize dissent, the Right will continue to express their dissatisfaction with the socialist ideas of the current government.

The left has achieved historic gains in the legislature while installing a socialist as our head of state. Given this situation, it should be expected that the minority will take issue with the upcoming administration and wish to speak out.  This opposition has every right to do so, but will the liberals defend this right?

So, the question for the left now is:

Is dissent still patriotic?

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

15. December 2008 by Satire V.

“Peace, back by popular demand”
This bumper sticker, the recent resurgence of the peace symbol, and peace rallies are viewed by many as signs of this country’s renewed desire for the end of war. This is a legitimate desire. Unfortunately, it is also a renewal of the raging ignorance and dangerous naivete of the 60’s.

There is a fundemental misunderstanding that is revealed by the simple-minded utterance of the word “peace”, or the use of the recently popular symbol. The implication is that we can simply declare peace on our enemies. This is entirely wrong.

The inverse, which is equally wrong, is perhaps the source of this mistake. Many on the left are foolish enough to believe that it requires both sides to declare war. War is not a tango, and it doesn’t take two. Even for those that fail to recognize earlier events for what these were, only a fool would not agree that on September 11th, 2001 our Islamofascist enemy declared war on us. They didn’t need our consent.

The same people that thought Woodstock was great, that burning draft cards was the ultimate expression of bravery, and that believe(d) that drugs can expand your mind are sadly teaching our children today. These people are trying to teach these children that peace is something we can simply choose of our own accord, and it will happen. This is not entirely wrong. In the same way that a child might avoid getting beaten by a bully by giving up his or her lunch money, we could possibly sell our freedoms for peace. Who would consider this price fair? I believe that freedom is far more valuable than peace without it.

Taking this peace-loving “stand” today helps the draft dodgers justify their cowardice in the 60’s. What an opportunity to make so much of the evil of war when they no longer have much to lose. They can even convince themselves that there is some risk involved in “resisting” and that they are therefore displaying great bravery.

We Americans have not had to fight often on our own ground. This is mostly because we have demonstrated an ability to, and a willingness to, wage successful war on our enemies. Sadly, because of the left in the late 60’s and now, and with the help of the “light right” in the first gulf war, the world can question our resolve. We can only pray that they don’t continue to test it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

1. December 2008 by Satire V.

ATHEIST

This was the entirety of the bumper sticker on a car in my neighborhood recently. What an interesting statement. This short statement seemed to say a couple of things.

First, I thought it must be an identification in the same way as a sticker saying “Hockey Mom”, or “Republican”, or “Raider Hater”. This person must identify himself as an atheist, I thought. 

My next thought was that this just didn’t seem like it could be right. Of the two meanings of the “a” prefix, most “a”theists claim the mantle of simple disbelief.   Why would someone declare a simple lack of belief in such a public way?  I’ve never seen anyone driving around with a bumper sticker saying “I don’t believe in dragons!”, “AUFOist”,  or “Afairyist,” or any other declaration that the driver wants everyone to know what he or she doesn’t believe in.  What a colossal waste of time to state everything one doesn’t believe in.  Even selecting one item of disbelief and plastering it on your vehicle is a bit ridiculous.

 The reasoning that makes the most sense is that the meaning is not “disbelief”, but “unbelief.”  Unbelief in that not only is there a lack of belief, but an opposition to belief.  In the same way that an unwilling person isn’t simply without will, but actively resists the intended goal, atheists seem interested in actively resisting the influence of religion.  This doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but when many of these people feel the need to actively resist the influence of religion on those who do want it, they go too far.

 Look at writers such as Christopher Hitchens; or listen to almost any member of Amerikans United for the Separation of Church and State.  There is an apparent need to try to make those who believe out to be ignorant rubes.  Why?  Why the shrill tone, the anger, the search for anything that might have the slighest scent of God about it that must be excised from public life?  Are these people really afraid that religion is going to take over the government?

More importantly, why do atheists seem to have such an axe to grind with Christianity in particular?  Christianity has had no more evil committed in its name than any other religion of note.  Secularism has been the source of far more misery than any religion.  So, why such hatred of Christianity?  Many atheists grew up in Christian families.  (many Christians grew up in atheist families as well)  Many of these unbelievers claim that there was rampant hypocrisy in the religious life of those close to them.  I suppose it is easy to be without any hypocrisy in secularism.  All one has to do is not have faith.  Christianity may be the focus of their ire because the God of Christ will judge each person on their own merits.  There is a requirement of personal responsibility.

Perhaps it is the idea of being held to an external standard that frightens atheists, for I believe that fear is at the root of atheistic anger.  It is easier to make angry statements about the stupidity of the faithful, easier to fight any public display of symbols of religion, and easier to say that God is not, than it is to accept responsibility for their life.  The only good that comes from this is that many atheists are otherwise decent people.  Knowing that if they behave in keeping with an atheistic belief, they will be challenged for selfish and amoral behavior, they end up living by most of the Commandments.  If they truly believe that there is no higher power, and that we are random collections of molecules, they should feel free to behave in any way they want.

Back to the Atheist of the bumper sticker.  He recently removed that sticker and replaced it with another that shows arrogance and a failed thinking process.  His new sticker reads:

“Dare to Think For Yourself”

How arrogant to tell others what they should dare, and what hypocrisy to tell others that they should think for themselves.  The statement is oxymoronic on its face.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »