Uncategorized

Regarding DOMA And Other “Assurances.”

Leo Pusateri100 Comments

OK– I’ll open the floodgates–time for a ramble….

Marriage is a word used to describe a societal institution, and it means something–or at least it has, that something being a relatively permanent, committed union between a man and a woman. Yes, I know that people have historically taken their own marriages too lightly and the Hollywood left and others have treated their marriages in much the same manner as middle-school kids treat crushes; but the essential accepted definition of the term, “MARRIAGE” has nonetheless remained intact for the better part of 2000 years.

Now, however, we are being told that we, in a new ‘enlightened’ era, must arbitrarily re-define the longstanding societal institution of marriage, for better or worse, to include same sex couples, and that it should be so under the 14th Amendment, and upheld between States under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Fine and dandy, I guess…BUT–

We’re also told that that’s as far as it will go– and if we (those who are against gay marriage and/or those who are on the fence) think that it is the beginning of a slippery slope ‘anything goes’ redefinition of the institution of marriage, we’re just paranoid neanderthals.. 10 or 15 years ago, we were also told that there was no need to pass a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution, because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protected that traditional definition.

Fine and dandy, as well, I guess;

However, up to this point, no one has been able to adequately explain how, if the SCOTUS decision tilts the “gay marriage” way, that polygamists, incestuous couples, etc., will not also want equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and sue for the right to marry, and that the term ‘marriage’ will have so many meanings so as to render what has been a veritable societal institution meaningless.

In other words, what is to prevent the slippery slope we’re being assured will not happen?

Personally, I’m of the mind that it’s a State issue, and that ALL unions should be civil unions. But should the term “Marriage” be so malleable so as to become meaningless?

Are people really thinking things through on this issue? Or are many merely living in the zeitgiest of the moment,  inconsiderate of and/or oblivious to the ramifications?

I’ve been thinking long and hard the past few days, and I can’t see any assurances that my worst nightmare regarding the institution of marriage, that it essentially becomes meaningless, will not come to fruition.

While many marriages have failed since time imemoriam, the institution of marriage on balance has unarguably been a net-positive as a building block for literally thousands of years into our civilization.

I guess all I’m saying is that we may be taking this issue a bit too cavalierly; jumping in the clouded pool without regard as to its depth and/or its potential consequences.

I await to be educated to the contrary.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan – Mark Steyn nails it:

…It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.” That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right…

The thing about liberals is that, at bottom, they are just downright nasty – doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will always take the worst possible position and if it contradicts their previous position its no matter…as long as hatred the destruction of our civilization proceed, they’re just pleased as punch.

Revisited: The Rationing Has Already Started and obAMATEUR-CARE Is Not in Full Swing Yet….

tiredoflibbs85 Comments

We told you so……

It was estimated that 9-25 million people with pre-existing conditions were not insured.

The “high risk pools” set up under 2010 obAMATEUR-care law will be closed to new applicants by March 2nd (some states by Sunday) because funding is running low.

A sign of things to come…. We have seen this in Europe, especially in England, but warnings went unheeded to the pResident and Democrats hell bent on 1/7th of the nations wealth.

What will happen next?

Update: Following are the smear attacks by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman on Republicans and Sarah Palin:

  • August 13, 2009 “Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course.”
  • August 20, 2009 “It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.”
  • February 25, 2010 “So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right.”
  • August 30, 2009“Moderate Republicans, the sort of people with whom one might have been able to negotiate a health care deal, have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence. Whom are Democrats supposed to reach out to, when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was supposed to be the linchpin of any deal, helped feed the “death panel” lies?”
  • October 4, 2009 “The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.”
  • March 21, 2010: “Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/krugman-death-panels-palin/2010/11/14/id/377013#ixzz2MEa6Iss9

The New York Times columnist, economist and political advisor said that within less than 20 years the US will need to raise taxes and ration healthcare to deal with rising costs under Obamacare and yes, he said “death panels.”

Turns out to be true!! Krugman confirms RATIONING AND DEATH PANELS!

So, what’s next?

Oh yeah the ultimate goal:  Single payer system totally in the hands of the government – total control of 1/7th of the economy.  It works so well with Medicare and the VA!

 

Where Is Your Line In The Sand?

Retired Spook164 Comments

I suspect almost all of us have a line beyond which we don’t want to see government “progress”. Clearly we haven’t reached that line for virtually anyone except an occasional fringe kook. Otherwise we’d be in the midst of a civil war or, at the very least, see the rise of violent, radical groups like the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army reminiscent of the 60’s and 70’s. And while the number of organized militias has increased 7-fold since Obama was first elected, only a couple have engaged in any activity that’s made the news. More mainstream groups like Oath Keepers are pretty low key, and, unless you’re a member, you’ve probably not seen them mentioned on the news.

So clearly the vast majority of people, while we may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now. And yet I believe everyone has a breaking point, a point beyond which they say “no mas” (A little Spanish lingo for those of you in Rio Linda).

So, some questions for our readers: where is your line in the sand? If you have a progression of lines, what is your response at each point? If the line is an action by your state, do you move to another state? Do you try to go “off the grid”? Do you simply move from a city to a rural area? At what point do you openly resist, either as an individual or as part of a group? Is there any principle that is so important to you that you’d risk your life to defend it?  Does anyone think it’s possible that the Progressives’ incremental and gradual approach will continue to succeed until we devolve into totalitarianism? If you’re a Progressive, what is it that you’re “progressing” toward? I’m guessing that even Progressives have a point beyond which they don’t want to see government go.  If history shows us anything, it’s that a progression of power into the hands of a central government always ends the same way.  Are you one of those “this time it will be different” people, or have you not thought that far ahead?

And finally, looking back at the last century of Progressivism, does anyone think it’s possible to reverse some of the lines we’ve already crossed, or is simply not possible to put that toothpaste back in the tube?

I’d like to see some comments from Progressives on this thread, even those who have been banned or routinely have their posts deleted.  You have my word that, as long as you stay on topic and stay civil, your posts will not be deleted.

 

George H.W. Bush in Intensive Care

Mark Noonan8 Comments

From Pajamas Media:

Former President George H.W. Bush has been moved into the intensive care unit, a family spokesman said.

Bush was originally admitted to a Houston hospital on Nov. 23 for a bronchitis-like cough, which has mostly gone away. But the 88-year-old has had a fever that has not only hung on, but has been rising.

“Following a series of setbacks including a persistent fever, President Bush was admitted to the intensive care unit at Methodist Hospital on Sunday where he remains in guarded condition,” family spokesman Jim McGrath said…

No worries for President Bush – at 88 he’s lived the full life; given what I know of the man, he’s certainly not at all worried for himself.  But my prayers for his family and friends during this trying time.

The Puppet Show

Leo Pusateri52 Comments

Well, the dutiful bubble-headed talking heads on the Alphabets, like clockwork, are busily carrying the democrat water, spouting off about how gun control is now the best thing since sliced bread; that it was the gun that killed the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, not the finger attached to the perp that pulled the trigger.

The bodies are cold enough. Let the politicization begin.

I’m really tired of having public policy dictated by the emotion du jour instead of by clear-thinking minds, just so some idiot politician can beat his or her chest, and say “Look at me!! See what I did?? I care!!” not to mention the lamebrained kneejerk reactions by some politically correct company board rooms afraid of their own shadows, putting their ears to the ground, just so they could follow the latest mindless lemming stampede.

As David Axelrod said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
There’s nothing that the current statist government-uber-alles powers-that-be would love more than to have an unarmed populace of subjects, vs. an armed populace of citizens.Never mind that gun control in this country, no matter how strict, has NEVER worked. It has had the OPPOSITE effect.Never mind that criminals don’t give a flying copulatory act in a rolling pastry about gun laws.

Never mind that the only ones who will be disarmed are the law abiding citizens who would never otherwise visit harm upon their fellow man.

It’s all about EMOTION. Rationality, my friends, is over-rated.

What you are now witnessing is a textbook example of David Axelrod’s axiom in action; Big Government statists and willing media accomplices engaging in a coordinated “campaign of whispers” to whip the information-bereft Idiocracy into an unstoppable emotion-laden frenzy to do their bidding under the guise of “doing *something!*” little realizing (or simply not caring) that they are all too willing to give up freedom, for a false sense of security, only to be relieved of both.

The puppeteers are now licking their chops; joyously, triumphantly pulling emotion-laden strings, and the dutiful marionettes are happily, even if unwittingly dancing to their tune.
With their “Lord and Savior” Barack Obama at the helm, who even needs congress?

Victims No More.

Leo Pusateri62 Comments
As an educator, and as one who has lived through a school shooting incident, I’m not going to sugar-coat anything. What happened in Connecticut (as well as the school district in which I worked) is proof positive that there is evil in the world, and evil will continue to prey on the most vulnerable. The only way to combat this evil is to make the vulnerable less so. If there was an armed teacher or administrator at Sandy Hook Elementary school, there is a great chance that many if not all innocent lives would have been saved. This would have held true in the theater in Aurora, Colorado, and even in Fort Hood, where, ironically, there were strict gun control laws. To deny this is not only foolish, it continues to place our children (and other innocent, law-abiding citizens) in harm’s way. 

A “No Guns Allowed” sign is nothing but an invitation for any low-life scumbag psycho-killer to enter what promises to be a target-rich environment. 

Victims, no more. It’s high time we stop ignoring the dangers and put an abrupt stop to this madness.

So That ______?

Leo Pusateri63 Comments

I just figured out the insidiousness connected with what passes for policymaking in Washington D.C. and elsewhere:

There aren’t enough”so thats” 

A long time ago I had a wise supervisor (in education, of all things) who said, “For everything you do in your job, as well as for every change you make in your procedure, you need to have a “so that” attached to it. In other words, I do this, so that________.” If you don’t have a good “so that,” then you have no good reason to keep on doing what you’re doing, or for implementing the change you’ve been contemplating. 

Prime example: “We will raise taxes on the wealthy so that_____.”

So that what? So that we can decrease the deficit? 

By all accounts, the tax hike currently being contemplated by the Democrats will produce enough extra income to run the government for a grand total of EIGHT MORE DAYS. And that is a liberal estimate. With the concomitant economic slowdown, more like FOUR extra days. 

So raising taxes so that to decrease the deficit doesn’t wash. 

So tell me, my Democrat friends- what is the “so that” connected to this grand scheme??

Some Post-Election Thoughts

Leo Pusateri50 Comments

Let me first say that what I’m about to write probably in no way reflects the feelings of Matt, or Mark, or any other contributor to this blog.  Hell, I don’t know if it even accurately reflects how I’ll feel a week from now.  Call it a stream of consciousness as to what I’m feeling at the moment.

I understand the Democrats played a good ground game. I understand we were rope-a-doped. I understand that the Republicans could have done a better job of conveying why Conservatism affords the most people the most opportunity for prosperity.

My question is thus– how can you overcome an opponent who not only can raise as much as you do, but has the added advantage of literally hundreds of millions of dollars more in free advertising and cover, from a group of people ostensibly charged to serve as watchdogs for the people against the government? The media was clearly, demonstrably, more in the tank for the democrat side than I have seen in my entire lifetime. Fox News tried covering the other side. But they’re one network. Difficult when you’re competing against NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN New York Times, ad nauseum.

How do you overcome those kinds of odds? How do you get a fair shot at selling your message?

Something tells me if we ran Jesus Christ Himself as a candidate, he still would have gotten smeared in wall-to-wall negative ads.  His Sermon on the Mount would have been misquoted and taken out of context, The networks would still have dutifully covered for Obama, stating that Jesus is just a poseur Messiah. Obama would promise more largesse, will have claimed to have lowered the rising seas, and would still have won the election yesterday. Seems the kind of world we live in right now. It may take a relatively long time, perhaps a decade, perhaps a decade in a half, until we are so far in the economic gutter that the economic Pridelands will have been picked of every life-giving force by the proverbial hyenas.

Only when the world has gone full Galt and the last of other people’s fruits wrought of productive enterprise have been sucked up and dried, will people understand the damage. By that time, I fear it will be too late. The United States, along with Egypt, Rome, Mesopotamia, Greece, Spain, Great Britain, and other great civilizations, will have been relegated to the books as just another flash in History’s pan.

Call me a negative Nelly, but at least at this point in time, I find it difficult to read the tea leaves any other way. Not that I won’t keep up the good fight, but right now I feel as if I’m taking the last stand at the Alamo.

Game over?

Party Trumps Person

Retired Spook40 Comments

I have asked Retired Spook to post this as a thread because as we near Election Day I think we need to consider the fact that we will not be voting for a person, but for a political system. Amazona

I have taken a lot of abuse here on this blog for making this statement, criticism which I think reflects a basic lack of knowledge of how our political system works. The other day I was listening to a Denver radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, who has often discussed his theory that Party Trumps Person, and he spoke to a caller who explained that he has always voted for the person he thought would be best for the job and wondered why Mike disagreed with this approach.

Mike gave a very concise and detailed explanation, and then referred listeners to the column he had written in the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News during the last Presidential campaign, a written version that is essentially what he had just told the caller. He said all we have to do is substitute “Romney” for “McCain.

In part, he says: “I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, his party’s coalition will be served. A Democratic president, for example, whether liberal or moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can’t survive the nominating process), can only operate within the political boundaries of his party’s coalition. The party that wins the presidency will fill Cabinet and sub-Cabinet discretionary positions in the executive branch with members of its coalition. Likewise, the coalition will be the dominant source of nominees to the federal courts, ambassadorships, appointments to boards and commissions, and a host of plum jobs handed out to those with political IOUs to cash in.

It works the same way in the legislative branch. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.”

This is important for us to remember. While it may feel more principled to vote for someone from the opposing party because you feel he or she is a better person than the one from your own, I suggest that the wiser course is to consider the result of having the other PARTY filling all these discretionary positions, committee chairmanships, etc. and vote for the party, and then work to make sure that the next party candidate for this position is a better one.

Your candidate is only one component of a political machine, and while he or she may represent a view you like, he or she will probably not be a deciding factor in a vote but will add to the total of party representation in the House or the Senate.

I take Mike’s statement a bit farther, as I think it is important to understand that when you vote for a party you are really voting for an ideology, because voting strictly by party, without this being based on ideological conviction, is really nothing more than Identity Politics.

For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party is taking a stand on ideology, openly stating its focus not just on issues but on broader ideological concepts such as adherence to the Constitution, reducing the size and scope and power of the federal government, fiscal responsibility, and redistribution of power to acknowledge state sovereignty. The Democrat Party is not running on its ideological agenda, which is for all intents and purposes the opposite of the Republican ideology, but we can see it in its actions and the issues it promotes.

And at this time, in this place, understanding of ideology and long-term agendas is more important than ever before, as well as an understanding of how the process works.

How Does Obama Survive This?

Cluster202 Comments

“the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution? — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make to make sure everybody has got a shot,” – Barack Hussein Obama, 1998
So Obama believes he needs to set up government systems and take OPM (other peoples money), to redistribute to those in need, and of course that government led by Obama would be the sole determiner of who wins and who loses. It’s not enough that only 53% of wage earners pay all income taxes, and it’s not enough that the top 10% pay over 71% of income taxes. Obama believes he needs to redistribute more.

Why does he hate the 53%?

He is toast. I am sure the media will be all over this.

Oh wait.