Classic Leftist hyperbole

News Flash: Spain's conservative government has provoked a storm among women's groups with plans to tighten abortion laws to make the procedure illegal in cases where the foetus is deformed. About 100 people took part in a rally in Madrid's central Tirso de Molina square on Sunday to protest against the proposed reform which they argue will take Spain back to the era of the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco. The crowd, mostly women, chanted "We give birth, we decide" and "Not one step backwards. It seems to us to be a throwback to the Franco dictatorship and we are not willing to accept under any circumstances measures that will take away our rights," said Justa Montero, member of the Feminist Assembly, one of the women's groups that organised the protest. Comment: The Left will never give an inch without putting up such an excessively hyperbolic rhetorical fight that you would think they were battling to save the earth from total annihilation. The sooner the Right accepts that this is just the way it's going to be, the sooner we might be able to get started on dismantling the Leftist state we now live in.

"Cool is now America’s holy grail that allows the elite and the rich not just to pursue and enjoy nice things, but to damn others who do the same." Victor Davis Hanson (May 23, 2012) To read full article, go to http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300700/power-cool-victor-davis-hanson?pg=1

Read the bill

“They get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” (Congressman John Conyers on the Affordable Healthcare Act)

A 2,700-page law is not a “law” by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.(MS,3/31/12)

Will Obama rejoice?

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasizes lowering costs." In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home.

In light of Obama's earlier position, I'm wondering if the poor performance by the Solicitor General arguing for the "individual mandate" may have been intentional. Could it be that Obama reluctantly went along with the mandate? After all, the Affordable Health Care act was more of a Pelosi-Reid creation than an Obama creation. Maybe Obama never really wanted the mandate and is secretly hoping the Supreme Court will overturn it. After all, it could hardly be argued that the new health care system is bringing down costs.

Kennedy has it right!

Obamacare "changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

Business Management 101

The pupose of a business is to make a profit = capitalism
The purpose of a business is to provide jobs = socialism

I'm amazed at how many so-called Conservatives have lost sight of these basic concepts, not to mention the fact that, in the end, the first provides far more better paying jobs than the second. This shows just how desperately education in this country needs a radical overhaul.

"If you love me...."

Obama's latest appeal to his obsequious heart-trobbing constituency: "But if you love me you've got to help me pass this bill." This is the most juvenile and unpresidential thing I've heard him say yet.

No house divided

U.S. Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln asserted in his now-famous "House Divided" speech that the United States could not "endure, permanently, half slave and half free." Lincoln believed that the forces behind abolition and those pushing for the expansion of slavery were too powerful and too dynamic to be confined by state borders or latitudinal lines. While we take Lincoln's words for granted today, the prevailing wisdom for generations had been that the states could remain divided over the slave question.

Senator Marco Rubio made an analogous assertion on Senate floor just after that body had voted to raise the debt ceiling. Rubio, who had given several powerful speeches throughout the debate, had saved his most profound sentiments for last. He painted a picture of two Americas. One of a powerful, effectively limitless welfare state where the government acts as guarantor of prosperity and driver of the economy. The other of an America where government is a protector of rights and thereby allows the opportunity-seeking citizenry to create prosperity and drive the economy.

These visions have wrestled for control for roughly 80 years. The recent acceleration toward a "government of guarantees" is why the Tea Party exists. The Tea Party is a national reawakening to the fact that America can become "all one thing," or unfortunately "all the other." In our modern politics it is stylish to suggest that both visions can coexist indefinitely. Most notably, President Obama rose to power on the platitudinal idea of "red" and "blue" state unity. Rubio resists this notion.

These are two very different version of America and two very different types of solutions. And ultimately we may find that between these two points, there may not be a middle ground. And that in fact as a nation and as a people we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America. Like Lincoln, Rubio recognizes the incompatibility of the competing visions of government. (condensed from an article in the American Thinker by Joseph Ashby, 8-8-11)

Learn from Europe, America.

Words worthy of thoughtful consideration from Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic:

Europeans today prefer leisure to performance, security to risk-taking, paternalism to free markets, collectivism and group entitlements to individualism. They have always been more risk-averse than Americans, but the difference continues to grow. Economic freedom has a very low priority here. It seems that Europeans are not interested in capitalism and free markets and do not understand that their current behavior undermines the very institutions that made their past success possible. They are eager to defend their non-economic freedoms—the easiness, looseness, laxity and permissiveness of modern or post-modern European society—but when it comes to their economic freedoms, they are quite indifferent.

The critical situation in Europe today is visible to everybody. It is not possible to hide it. I had believed that this spectacle would be a help to the cause of political and economic freedom in Europe, but this is not proving to be the case. Of course, with the way your American government has been going, you might be able to catch up with us—in terms of our problems—very soon. But you are not as far along yet. So maybe seeing Europe’s crisis today will at least help you in America turn back toward freedom.