Democrats vs First Amendment – Round One, Fight!

Following Instaglenns’ favorite goof, “They told me that if George Bush were re-elected, those who speak out against the government would be prosecuted and jailed.”

In a clear case of projection, Democrats decide that the First Amendment isn’t very cool.

The FCC investigation raises the question of whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House next year will investigate — and perhaps criminalize — all sorts of actions taken by the Bush administration. Obama is leading in all presidential polls, while Democrats are set to greatly increase their hold on the House and Senate.

Democrats are really over playing their hand here, aren’t they? Elections aren’t even held yet, and they’ve promised:

  • 25% cut in Defense Spending
  • $250 billion stimilus package (welfare) to those that don’t pay taxes
  • Rewriting S-Corp laws
  • Passing the expanded S-CHIP, that gives medical benefits to illegals and kids (up to age 25) who make up to $80,000 per year
  • New Deal 2
  • Fairness Doctrine
  • Nationalizing 401(k) Plans

Have I missed anything? I’m sure I have. But it’s a pretty comprehensive list already and makes for a good first 100 days. Now, they’re starting a war on the First Amendment.

The probe is sending chills through the ranks of military commentators, some of them decorated war heroes who share their expertise with millions of lay viewers. They see it as one in a series of moves the Left is making to intimidate and shut up its critics.

“We are seeing the dawn of a new era of the current Democratic leadership trying to muzzle free speech and the First Amendment,” retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a Fox News analyst, told HUMAN EVENTS. “It may be the most invasive intrusion that we have seen in our history. There will be more of these tactics to follow.”

Said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of Fox’s first defense analysts, “It’s an affront to freedom of speech. As retired officers, we’re private citizens and can say anything we want under the First Amendment. The whole thing was to explain to the American people what was going on in war and analyzing it.”

Private citizens, using their First Amendment rights.

Not in 2009, Mister!

But you know, if Obama wins on the 4th, people cannot say they weren’t warned. Democrats are telling you exactly how they’ll govern in 2009 and you’ll be sure to get it. I’m sure.

Exit Question: If the democrats have a 59-41 advantage in the Senate, will it be called the nuclear option? Or will it have a new, less ominous name? You don’t have to answer. The press will answer it soon.

Good news. Obama only wants judges who strictly adhere to the constitution! Wait, no he doesn’t. Nor do his supporters.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Redistribution of Wealth & Obama Supporters

From the internet someplace.

Yesterday on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money”. I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ Button, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–I pointed out the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient “lacked” the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

True true. Sounds good until you are the victim, I think.

Someone else online suggested that this Halloween; instead of handing out candy to kids; you take their candy and then decide how much they get to keep and then tell them that Obama will decide where the rest of their candy goes. When they start crying; tell them, “Now you are a Republican. Go home and tell your parents to vote McCain, because Obama wants to steal your candy that you’ve worked to get.”

Metaphor of the Day

Spider eats Bird

Spider eats Bird

In a metaphor for the upcoming election; a huge spider has consumed a bird – something you would not normally think possible.

If you consider that the spider is Obama; and the middle class is the bird that is about to be consumed.

It’s all about spreading the wealth around. You know. People who don’t work for a living deserve to have a cell phone, 2 TVs, a car, an AC and a house too. You’re racist for even suggesting otherwise.

What if Republicans Caused the Credit Crisis?

This is a great piece examining the media bias as it relates to the credit crisis.

Isn’t there a story here?  Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?  Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.  “Housing-gate,” no doubt.  Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

It’s been amazing how remarkably incurious the press has been about Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pelosi’s quote alone, No witch hunts, should perked up a ton of ears. It was a tell that this is a democrat problem.

When we add on top of this, Mahoney (D-FL), who sits in the same seat occupied by Mark Foley, who now has multiple mistresses (Foley had none), has redirected campaign funds to pay off those mistresses (against federal law) and is now under FBI investigation and the press barely bats an eye, the bias is apparent.

Mark Foley was the poster child of Republican incompetence in 2006. And the press hammered it as a way to make sure that Democrats took over that cycle.

This year, Democrats have killed the entire economy with faulty economic policy; have sex scandals coming out their ass, and have a senator (Schumer) who apparently put Indymac out of business at the behest of democrat special interest groups.

Where is the press? Worshipping their new overlord. Willingly fulfilling Orwell.

Obama Endorsements: Stock Price Correlation

It’s endorsement weekend, apparently.

So far, Obama Senator Government has been endorsed by several papers, so let’s look at their stock prices over the past 5 years and see if they can manage to run their own company; much less decide who should run the country. (Green colors indicate the higher stock price between 2004 and 2008)

New York Times 5 year history 2004: 46; 2008: 13

Washington Post 5 year history 2004: 708, 2008: 509

Los Angeles Times (Tribune Co) 5 year history 2004: 79, 2008: 27.50

San Francisco Chronicle 5 year history 2004: 23.05, 2008: 14.89

Miami Herald 5 year history 2004: 66.30, 2008: 3.52

Atlanta Journal Constitution 5 year history 2004: 22, 2008: 6.92

This, of course, is not exhaustive. I could also correlate the drop in readership to the endorsements as well. Or the overall bias of the paper to the endorsements. But the point is clear. If these companies cannot manage their own business, why are they qualified to tell people who to vote for President?

And given how poorly they manage these companies, doesn’t it tell you to vote for the person they don’t pick?

November 5 Predictions

These are my predictions for November 5th, the day after the election.

The Media:

Hey, we were pretty biased weren’t we? (Media has spent more time wondering about the contents of Palin’s uterus and Joe the Plumber’s tax records than on Obama’s career in Chicago).

If Obama wins:

You know those tax cuts? Yeah. Not happening. (Just like Clinton in 1992. With a projected $750 billion deficit in 2009, tax cuts will be impossible for him. Especially with all the spending socialism he wants)

If McCain wins:

My top priority? Amnesty for illegals. (Yes, that “let’s not talk about that” issue during the campaign)

Congress (democrat majority):

You know what we need? More spending. (Pelosi already floating a $250 billion stimulus package for after the election. Why on Bush’s watch? So Obama won’t get blamed for the deficit. Duh!)

Congress (republican majority):

How the hell did this happen? (Cuz it won’t!)

(Maybe I’ll add to this if I’m bored)

Me:

Fable 2. Fallout 3.

Preparing for holiday business (hope it’s a good season!)

Wondering how punitive my tax increase will be. S-Corps are gonna be screwed if when Obama wins.

Joe The Plumber for President

This video says it all, doesn’t it? Why can’t Joe the Plumber run for office?

And why can’t politicians speak this straight forward?

We do need to get rid of the sense of entitlement. Yes, Obama is a Socialist (McCain is Socialist lite, granted). No, government is not the answer to our problems. It is, in fact, the cause of most of our problems.

Joe ’08. As I said before, we need a Mrs. Smith in Washington. The problem is, McCain is not Mr. Smith.

UPDATE: Joe Biden doesn’t know Joe the Plumber. Doesn’t care about Joe the Plumber. But Joe Biden thinks cops are small businesses. Eh?

MORE: Joe the Plumber with Neil Cavuto.

Seriously. Neil Cavuto. Joe the Plumber. Sarah Palin. Bobby Jindal. It’s a pity the Republicans in Washington are so miserable. We have such good voices out in the real world. Why can’t we bring it to Washington?

MORE: John McCain releases a Joe the Plumber Ad.

I haven’t seen the ad yet (as of posting this) but I’m hoping McCain cedes the top of the ticket to Joe the Plumber!

Socialism is not Optional

When Canada is more free market than the United States, maybe it’s time to rethink our political climate, no?

Smaller, well capitalized banks, are balking at the bailout package – that they do not want to be part of. Someone forgot to remind them that Socialism is not optional, it’s mandatory.

At Evergreen Federal Bank in Grants Pass, Ore., chief executive Brady Adams said he has more than 2,000 loans outstanding and only three borrowers behind on payments. “We don’t need a bailout, and if other banks had run their banks like we ran our bank, they wouldn’t have needed a bailout, either,” Adams said.

What an amazing concept. Only giving out loans to people who can pay them back over time. If someone had thought of this years ago, maybe this mess wouldn’t have happened. Oh well.

The opposition suggested that the government may have to continue to press banks to participate in the plan. The first $125 billion will be divided among nine of the largest U.S. banks, which were forced to accept the investment to help destigmatize the program in the eyes of other institutions.

Government doesn’t do things because it’s nice. It does things because it can. And dammit, you will comply with their wishes. I love that private businesses have no say in the matter at all. And here you thought this was a bailout package, not a foot in the door to full blown socialism. Someone fooled you, didn’t they?

This bailout package is really just another example of corporate welfare. The transfer of wealth from the tax paying middle class workers to super huge companies. Republicans should have stood against this, but they did not. I don’t expect Democrats to be opposed to welfare of any kind (increases their power base!) but Republicans. Extreme disappointment.

If this were a complete scam, part of the bailout money would go to vote scamming ACORN. Oh wait.

And, you know, that’s particularly outrageous is that the mortgage bailout, the Freddie and Fannie Mae bailout bill which was done this August which I also voted against because that nationalized the mortgage industry, that bill, Barney Frank voted language in that bill this summer which hard wires $420 of a $100,000 mortgage to ACORN, La Raza and other organizations like –

So government is subsidizing an organization that is perpetuating vote fraud and false registrations?

How much longer till our democracy is completely de-legitimized? Maybe when Presidential candidates openly feed the media appropriate talking points. Oh. Too late.

Ah well. It was fun while it lasted.

Atlas Shrugged is apparently prophecy, not fiction.

Obama Caused the Subprime Mortgage Mess

Obama is going to win the Presidency. Let’s face reality. McCain either doesn’t believe in the free market, or he isn’t capable of defending it. Either way, I feel like I’m in an Ayn Rand novel.

The complicit media will have elected the guy who got us into a global financial disaster.

The entire elected Democrat contingent in Washington is responsible for letting it grow. While taking political donations and having sexual partners on the boards of these companies.

And this country is going to put more of them into office. Pelosi says no witch hunts into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The United States Government is going to start nationalizing banks. Taxing 401-k Plans.

“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.

Read that carefully. Just a reminder that Democrats think it’s their money, they just let you keep some if it.

Yep. Put more of these people in power. That’s smart.

Obama on Tuesday, said that there would be a net spending reduction while he’s in office. Immediately after the debate, his campaign said that “spending cuts” really means “tax increases” – so looks like Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone after he’s elected.

Anyone who believes that his tax increases will only those making $250,000 or more are clueless.

Just relying on recent history; Clinton got elected in 1992 by promising a middle class tax cut. We got the biggest tax increase in history instead. Obama is promising a tax increase. What do you think he’s gonna do?

That his campaign won’t even say tax increases anymore should say it all. Instead, they say “look at the revenue side of things” or “spending cuts” – be afraid. Be very afraid.

Be ready for a multi year recession, possibly a global depression. 15% unemployment.

He’s going to make Carter look like Reagan.

That is, if we can retain our sovereignty.