Can Oregon Afford Another Term With Mitch Greenlick?

Oregon deserves a brighter future.

The simple answer is 'No.'

The question is will the people of District 33 have the where with all to figure that out for the rest of the state. With unemployement rising, the economy stifled and Greenlick looking to continue his penchant to increase government regulation and increase taxation, there is hope that the light of day will break thru the liberal gloom of Northwest Portland and its near surrounds.

Mitch Greenlick On Reckless Course

Greenlick amongst his base - Federal Employee union members.

If ever there was a time to turn out a big government statist, this would be it. The state is struggling with 12% unemployment, the public employee retirement system is devouring what revenues the state can produce, and Mitch Greenlick wants more taxes and more state mandated healthcare programs. He is Oregon's own Captain Edward Smith, standing on the bridge of the Titanic. He knows the iceberg damaged the ship, but he insists on steaming on into the night, into an uncertain and perilous future.

Mitch Greenlick is an unmitigated disaster. His policies are killing our state, and are pushed upon us with little regard to the will of the people. Case in point would be the recent additional 60 cent cigarette tax Greenlick burdened the citizens of Oregon with. "I am fully ready to take on the tobacco industry" Greenlick said "Their product kills people." Yeah, well outlaw it then, Mitch. It is such a specious argument. You are not taxing the tobacco companies, Merwyn, you're taxing the people that like to smoke, and you are saying that it is for them to carry the burden of supplying the funds for your healthcare scheme. It's criminal. And this, despite the fact that the very same proposal was brought before the Oregon voters in 2007, and the voters rejected it. That didn't trouble Merwyn any. In 2009 the Dems had a super majority in both houses, so they didn't have to trouble with getting the approval of the people that live in his state. What an ass.

Vote for new blood.. a bright young man who is concerned about the will of the people and who will stop further taxation and governmental expansion.

Vote Michael Bieker for State House District 33.

Michael Bieker Offers Oregon House District 33 New Direction

After seven years in the Oregon legislature, Mitch Greenlick has expanded taxes, legislated financial obligations on private industry, destroyed the recovery program that aided Oregon's physicians in need, and helped to place the state into a two billion dollar financial hole.  A true believer in 'Better living through better government', Mr. Greenlick thoroughly bought into the idea that  'More is better'.  More committees, more regulations, more tax funded programs...enough to choke a pig.

Come November Oregonians in District 33 will have an opportunity to turn control of the state back to the people. 

Michael Bieker is a newcomer to politics.  A small business owner and entrepreneur, he is well aware of the drubbing small businesses have taken over the past few years, with declining business due to the poor economy, coupled with increased taxation and regulation from statist bureaucrats like Mitch Greenlick.  Mr. Bieker has pledged to vote against any further inceases in state income generation schemes, whether it be efforts at increasing taxes, increasing fees, or the increasing the costs accessed for tickets and fines.  Mr. Bieker is bright and well spoken, with ideas that are centered on limiting government intrusion, not expanding it as we have suffered from so much in the past.  Young Mr. Bieker is a breath of fresh air.  It is my great pleasure to recommend to you Michael Bieker to represent Oregon House District 33.

Mitch Greenlick Gets Dream Candidate In Dr. Donald Berwick

Oregon House Health Care Committee chairman Mitch Greenlick has offered some ill considered opinions regarding healthcare, all of which I am sorry to say are in agreement with Barack Obama's recess appointment to head up the Medicare program. Dr. Donald Berwick is the presidents choice, but rather than go through a Senate confirmation process, he was appointed to the position and put in place while the Senate was at recess. Commemorating 60 years of England's National Health Service in July of 2008, Dr. Berwick gave broad praise to the institution, attributing to it virtue for being a means by which wealth is taken from one group of people and given to another:

“... sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker. And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”

Yes, Dr. Berwick, what you are speaking of is called theft. I suppose you might prefer the term legalized theft, but it is all one. Theft may or may not be legal. However, it is always immoral. Furthermore, the common thief does not pat himself on the back for his stealing, whereas bureaucratic dolts do.

Schwarzenegger Discovers A Monkey In The Works

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to address the state's empty coffers has again been frustrated by (guess who?) Democrats in state government.

The state currently has a 19 Billion dollar deficit (that would be Billion, with a "B") which has yet to be addressed by the Democrat controlled state legislature. The Legislature's failure to act has left the state with a financial shortfall and without a spending plan as the new fiscal year begins. In response Schwarzenegger ordered the state workers' pay temporarily cut to the federal minimum wage as a stop gap measure, the back owed payments to be repaid once the state has funded its expenditures.

Governor Schwarzenegger's action was initially challenged in court. Just Friday, a state appellate court ruled in Schwarzenegger's favor, affirming the governor does have the power to make such changes in dealing with the state's budget woes. However, John Chiang, a Democrat elected in 2006 and the state controller who issues state paychecks, says he cannot comply. He cited the state's computer system as the reason, claiming the technological challenge of restating paychecks to the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour was just too difficult to tabulate, and asserted the computerized payroll system won't be able to be programmed for such a highly complicated calculation until October 2012. (!)

Mr. Chiang referred to a loophole in the courts ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeals, which said "unfeasibility" would excuse him from complying with Schwarzenegger's minimum wage order.

Let's see here. To comply Mr. Chaing would have to instruct the computer's writing paychecks to set reimbursement rates for all the states employees to $7.25 per hour, then cut checks accordingly.

I have to tell you, it is a rare day when we have government employees citing their own incompetence as a reason for their inability to effect change. I'm not even a computer guy, but I can tell you if all you have to do is reset the wage as $7.25 an hour for all employees that looks like a pretty simple task. Can't get it done until October of 2012? It's going to take Mr. Chiang twenty seven months to get it done? What's this clown thinking? Even if he wrote out all 200,000 checks by hand, it wouldn't take him two and a quarter years to do it. Sheesh, no wonder these guys are in trouble.

Okay Dr. Greenlick, here is your state controlled bureaucracy functioning at its finest.

Good grief.

If Mitch Greenlick Can Be This Wrong On Rights, What Else Is He Wrong About?

Political positions in state government can have far reaching implications. Amongst statists, it is their well entrenched idea that the safety and well being among the nameless people of the state are best guaranteed by an intrusive state presence and its regulatory powers. That is how you get people like Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, whose background is in health system organizations, finding his way onto the chairmanship of the House Health Care Committee.

We recently noted Dr. Greenlick declaring:

"Rights come from wrongs"

Rights come from wrongs? Is he being flip here or does he actually believe this is an insightful comment? He followed that with his healthcare idea for the state of Oregon:

"it is the obligation of the state to ensure that every legal resident of Oregon has access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Dr. Greenlick is confusing rights with wishes. As Dr. Walter E. Williams points out

"True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another."

If Dr. Greenlick needs medical care, the onus is on himself to arrange for payment of those services. To use the power of the state to force his fellow citizens to pay for his care is for him to enslave those very same citizens. Dr. Williams continues:

"To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes."

Would Dr. Greenlick consider slavery a right? Professor Williams does not:

"Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation."

The state's funds are derived from the purses of the people. To claim that the state has an obligation to pay for someone's food or car or medical care is to put a claim on the funds of the people of the state, people that have worked for and earned the funds that Dr. Greenlick would claim by fiat.

This then is not an act of charity, it is an act of theft.

Mitch Greenlick, Chairman of Oregon House Health Committee

Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, has attempted to make the provision of health care a right in the Oregon Constitution for more than five years. In this, his third legislative session in which he has introduced a proposal to make the state responsible to fund healthcare services to the uninsured, the resolution fell short of the number needed to pass. Greenlick said he will not try again. Let us hope we can take him at his word.

The measure called for amending the Oregon Constitution to declare:

"it is the obligation of the state to ensure that every legal resident of Oregon has access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Opponents said the measure would subject the state to an obligation it could not afford to deliver. Said Representative Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, the resolution was "a social experiment in constitutional socialism."

"Greenlick said he would be dead from lymphoma, now in remission, if he did not have access to affordable health care. That access should be a right, not a privilege, he said."

Why?

"Rights come from wrongs," he said. "What more egregious wrong can there be than depriving people the right to life simply because they do not have access to health care."

Rights come from wrongs? What kind of disturbance in one's thinking could result in such a non sequitur to be offered up as a proof?

Dr. Greenlick, this nation was founded on the principle that we as people are the possessors of rights that are inalienable. That is, the rights we are the possessors of cannot be transferred or given away. They are intrinsically ours as they come from God. We are not beholding to the state. When the state transgresses these rights it does wrong. An example of such a wrong would be your plan to take the funds from one person and give it for the benefit of another. This is called theft, and it is an immoral practice.

General McChrystal Returns Home

General Stanley McChrystal was in charge and responsible for the Afghanistan theater of war, a difficult and dangerous place where men under his command were dying every week. It was the hottest war zone at the time President Obama took office, and was the theater of operations that the president had been saying for years was where we should be fighting, where we should be placing our major military efforts to confront the terrorists responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. It was the good war, so he said. It was the right war to fight, as opposed to that bad, unwinnable war in Iraq that Senator Obama had criticized President Bush and candidate McCain over, as he did, over and over again. And yet after all this rhetoric and political grandstanding, upon winning the office of the presidency he completely ignored General McChrystal and his command in Afghanistan.

In March of 2009 President Obama had given General McChyrstal the mission to secure the population and destroy the terrorists that oppose us. McChystal generated a plan to pacify the area. The plan was geared toward killing the Taliban. To that end General McChrystal needed a significant increase in force to provide security and safety to the population areas while McChyrstal and his special ops units would go out at night to seek and kill the enemy. As the Washington Post reviewed in this article of December 2009, the general submitted his plan in August of 2009. On reviewing the plan in September, the president was frustrated by the plan's call to increase the force strength deployed. The plan's stated goal of destroying the terrorists that opposed us was thought by the president as a fools errand. Apparently he considered that to be a goal that was impossible to achieve. In answer, General McChyrstal replied that it was needed to complete his mission of destroying the terrorists forces that oppose us. Frustrated, the President stated he desired to stabilize and keep secure the Afghani government. The general had to refer the president back to his original order of March of 2009 before President Obama realized that the plan before him was directed to achieving the goals he had asked General McChyrstal to achieve.

To this plan President Obama said nothing...for months... while McChyrstal and his command continued to take casualties in a war the president clearly was not committed to fighting. Finally, after months of deliberations, months of political posturing, months of trillion dollar bailouts and private industry take overs, the President approved a plan for a surge in Afghanistan troop levels, but at only the minimum level McChyrstal thought was possible to have any chance of success.

The president supplied General McChyrstal with conflicting orders, conflicting goals, extreme delays in response, and in all this time only met with General McChrystal twice. Then the Rolling stone article came out. Suddenly General Stanley McChystal is summoned to Washington to meet with the President. Suddenly the President's war in Afghanistan was an item of interest. Suddenly the commander in chief is chapped and we're being distracted from an enormously important mission. It's ass kicking time.

No Mr. President, what you're up to isn't ass kicking. Ass kicking was what Stanley McChystal and his special ops guys were all about, going out into the dark of night to locate and kill a deadly enemy in a war that you left him and his command to fight.

Now he is stateside, and his command is the worse for it.

It's My Party And I'll Cry If I Want To!

You would cry too
if it happened to you!

Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, who jumped ship from the GOP to join the Democrats after their takeover of both houses, was defeated in the Democratic primary for his Senate seat. Specter had been shown in campaign ads of opponent Joe Sestak saying he had switched parties so he could win re-election. The turncoat political moderate had never been known for his committment to conservatism, and was completely unreliable to his fellow republican party members. His switch in party affiliation underscored the mistake the GOP had made in backing him in 2004. Those same 2004 campaign adds came back haunt Senator Spector as Mr. Sestak made them the center point of his campaign, with a television commercial showing former President George W. Bush saying he could count on Specter.

Well, what goes around, comes around. Adios Senator Spector. You will not be missed.

Update Wednesday May 19th, 2010

Well the good senator has weighed in on his loss in the polls, with his own distinctly personal style:

“If we’re not careful, if you don’t field the strongest candidate — frankly, like Arlen Specter — they’re going to take over,” Specter said of the tea parties. “Beating the tea party gang is more important than who does the beating.”

Spoken like the self-absorbed nitwit that you are. Apparently we have all missed out on a strong candidate like Arlen Spector... such a pity! But Arlen, you lost in the Democrat primary. Presumably, a constituency group that you chose to associate with that want nothing to do with the Tea Party. You're the cook that baked this cake - quit your selfish whining and eat it!

Update II

Beating the tea party gang is more important than who does the beating? Defeating a broad based grass roots coalition that desires fiscal responsibility, limited government, limited taxation and greater individual freedom - essentially the principles which this nation was founded upon - defeating them is the important thing to this geez bag? The man's words betray who has always been. Wish we could have beat his ass years ago. Sit down, senator. Your time...is up.

Obama Shocked.. Shocked to Discover Finger-pointing Going On

The Nations number one pol, who since elected has never lost an opportunity to ridicule and demean a private industry he has turned his lustful gaze upon, finds himself at the end of his patience.

"Obama, whose comments until now have been measured, heatedly condemned a "ridiculous spectacle" of oil executives shifting blame in congressional hearings and denounced a "cozy relationship" between their companies and the federal government."

Yes, the man who has complained ad infinitum about the problems he 'inherited', and who has attempted to justify his TARP bail-out program, his insertion into and take-over of auto makers Chrysler and GM, who had a hand in the take down of Lehman brothers and most importantly the government takeover of the health care industry, all justified with the character assassination of the players involved, has decided that finger pointing is too much for him to brook.

"I will not tolerate more fingerpointing or irresponsibility," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, flanked by members of his Cabinet.

Oh yes, the man who put the middle finger in finger pointing tells the White house Press corps that he has had it with finger pointing, and with untroubled hearts, they dutifully wrote it all down for you and me to ponder.

"The system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it," the president said.

Thank you , Mr. President. Would you care to lead the way for us?

Echoing President Ronald Reagan's comment on nuclear arms agreements with Moscow, he said, "To borrow an old phrase, we will trust but we will verify."

BP, a corporation that provides this nation with the resource that fuels our economy and upon which our nation depends, is to be treated like the Soviet Union, who looked to dominate and bury us?

Oy vey!

Obama Commencement Speech Displays Failure to Comprehend Founding Documents

One would hope that the man that has risen to head this great nation, the beacon of freedom for the world, would have a rudimentary understanding of the nation's history and the significance of its founding documents. In the case of Barrack Obama, Ivy league educated and law degree not withstanding, one's hopes fail.

After recently deriding the people of the entire state of Arizona, the president dashed off to Michigan to sell the massive programs that have crushed the nation in debt. First up the president minimized concerns over his trillion dollar expenditures by saying that debates about the size and role of government are as old as the republic itself. It wasn't at first clear if this was intended as a laugh line.

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

Holy cripes! What does this guy think the American revolution was about? What was worth risking life and fortune over? Though they largely considered themselves to be English gentlemen, the colonists found English rule unbearable. Why was that so, and what was it the young republic was set up to keep in check? Why the separation of powers? Why the Bill of Rights? Did any of that come up in the education of one Barrack Hussein Obama? Well, the president has answered that question in resounding fashion, and the answer is...No.





"Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities."



It is also the IRS, the massive bureaucracies, the incredible inefficiencies, the inside dealing, the corruption, and of course, the prisons, all of which stink worse than Barney Frank's basement apartment.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy."

Exactly wrong, professor. What financial melt down would have occurred if it were not for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

None.

What melt down would have occurred if the federal government had not pushed unsafe lending practices under President Clinton and pushed further by the hapless Barney Frank and the greedy Christopher Dodd?

None.

The world economy owes the entire financial crisis that we are currently dealing with to the corrupt practices of liberals in governmental positions of power.

"Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,"fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise..."

Is this guy for real? What the hell has he been saying the past week about the people of Arizona?

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

A president of the people?

"Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship"

When has he ever done that? Where can he point? What, his cut off remark to republicans "We won"?

Anyways, sanity could be found just a few miles down the road, where forty-five minutes away Sarah Palin was speaking at an audience sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation. She stated unequivocally that President Obama was overreaching:

"The fundamental transformation of America is not what we all bargained for"

Well... exactly.

Arizona Tea Party

Amongst all the hubbub and posturing on the left over their collective inane outrage that people thousands of miles away might decide to try to slow their inundation with illegal aliens, came their cry to boycott the drinking of Arizona Ice Tea.

"Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea," Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles.

"It is the drink of fascists," wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago.

Now I have partaken of Arizona Ice Tea from time to time, and I have always found it to be a very tasteful and satisfying beverage. But this is not the reason I am going to go out and empty the stores of this fine product. No, I am going to buy Arizona Ice Tea because I have come to the realization that whatever it is they are thinking they want to do in San Francisco, I would prefer to do the opposite. And I for one am not going to go quietly into the night while some cappuccino sipping sophisticate in a Star Bucks in San Francisco decides what beverage selection I should make, based on his own ass backwards view of the world.

And by the way, Einstein, Arizona Ice Tea is manufactured and bottled in New York.

Arizona Proud

With the passage of the Arizona Legislative law allowing state and local law enforcement officers to verify the citizenship of people they are interacting with has come an opportunity for the great leader of our nation to impugn yet another group of law abiding citizens. This is nothing new, as so far the president has impugned the management of the major automakers, law enforcement officers of Cambridge, US doctors and hospitals, the health insurance companies, Wall Street investors and the US taxpayers as a whole. Well, on to disparaging all the citizens of the great state of Arizona.

The first priority of our federal government is to keep the citizenry safe. Our borders must be secure to do this. Contrary to our president's pronouncements, peace in the Middle East is not a national security issue. Border security in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico is. As per the language in the law passed:

If a police officer comes into “lawful contact” with a person (because their job as a police officer requires them to do so), and the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien or illegal resident, that officer must make a reasonable attempt to ascertain whether that person is in the United States legally. If, in the course of that “lawful contact”, the person provides an Arizona driver’s license, photo ID, tribal identification, or any other piece of identification for which they had to prove their legal residence when they got it, then that person is automatically assumed to be a legal resident.

Shocking, isn't it. A regular Gestapo hell.

Meanwhile, the President has called it misguided and asked the attorney general to look into the constitutionality of the law, tacitly approving unrest in the hispanic community and placing the lives of Arizona citizens and law enforcement officers at risk. For a guy who just a few days ago was concerned about tone and worried about anti-government protest and potential violence, he suddenly has lost his bearings.

Rather than providing leadership and addressing the problems our Southwest and nation as a whole has with illegal immigration, this president has chosen to inflame the situation for his political gain. It goes without saying that the law passed in Arizona was not brought into being because the people of Arizona are racist or bitter or hateful people. It occurred because the Federal government has failed. This is not something he should be bringing attention to. It is something President Obama should be embarrassed by.

Obama Threatens to Extend Reach Over Arizona

Ever looking to stomp his muddy boots over the backs of average Americans, President Obama slammed a controversial new immigration law passed by the state legislature in Arizona, calling it "misguided." According to CNN:

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," the president said at a naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the military.

The 'efforts' in Arizona the President refers to is a state law, passed by the state legislature with 70% support from the people that live there, and signed into law by the duly elected Governor.

That is not misguided, Mr. President, that is called people governing themselves, enacting changes to affect their best interests, as they see fit. I realize you were not asked for permission on this, and I know that's hard to hear, but the fact is your opinion doesn't weigh in when the people of a state decide they need to better protect themselves from the flood of illegal immigrants that the Federal government is charged with dealing with, but which it shows increasing reluctance to do.

"In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at the federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

Misguided? As opposed to Your job stimulus bill, Your bail-out of the financial sector, Your take-over of Chrysler and GM, or Your biggest bag so far, Your government take over of the healthcare services industry by passage of Your laughably titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Look, Bare, if you think it is misguided, odds on... it's genius.

Update:
This story just gets worse for those of us interested in freedom and protecting the rule of law, of which there is a nice discussion of over at Iliocentrism.

The New York Times has flattered themselves by weighing in on the topic, and as usual their editorial style delivery of a news piece results in pretzel like conclusions. After investigating the story, the Times offers the following:

Ms. Brewer has spent the last 27 years in elected politics — as a member of both houses of the Arizona Legislature over a 14-year span, as a Maricopa County supervisor, as secretary of state for seven years and as governor — but she has rarely sought the limelight.

It is a personality parade, a question of political acumen, and of mixed loyalties. Well, strike three, you're OUT!

Forget the Times, what does the governor have to say:

“Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state,” she said on Friday after signing the immigration bill. “We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.”

That looks pretty clear to me. These people are attempting to protect themselves. President Obama should concern himself with the same issue, not just sell them out.

Man On Fire

President Obama found himself in the position of yelling at critics of his administration.

Heckled, harassed and shouted down, the President found that he no longer could express himself in the usual metered, relaxed tone that has been the hallmark of his eloquence.

The protests brought the speech to a halt, and the protesters did not lower their voices after others in the crowd urged them to end their shouting.

"What about 'Don't ask, don't tell?'" one protester shouted, according to a White House pool report.

Obama yelled back: "We are going to do that."

Nice to see the man finally find his passion. Give 'em hell, Barry.

Obama, Bill Clinton Bitter Over Governing A Free People

"Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing"

The latest rounds of misgivings espoused by former President Bill Clinton, and echoed in the recent comments of current President Obama, underscore both men's lack of confidence in free societies and their discomfort at having the public question the direction their leadership is taking the country.

“I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies, about taxes. You would think they would be saying, "Thank you!" That's what you'd think!"

Well, perhaps that is what you might think, Mr. President. It is not what I would think.

The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is an essential aspect of our heritage. It is the clearest expression of the idea that a nation should be governed by the people themselves. Governing against the will of the people is anathema to our shared American traditions. Never has it been more clear that our current president holds none of those great ideas in regard than when he scoffed at the Tea Party movement in his comments in Florida.

The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document, for it lays out the general ideas of government that resulted in the freest, most inventive and industrious people that the world has ever known. This great nation has served as a beacon of freedom, and has been the refuge and hope of all the world.

The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is constitutionally guaranteed to the people in our First Amendment. This, the first of ten amendments promised at the constitutional convention, are commonly referred to as our Bill of Rights. They are the essential building blocks of freedom, as they define that the powers of the government are limited, and subject to the people governed.

The lack of comfort shown by both men, despite the considerable time they spent training in the law, underscores a deeply held misgiving and lack of trust they hold toward the core principles in the nations founding. If we are to listen to Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, we must elevate these men as not only our betters, but the betters of the men who founded this country.

Can we in good faith do that? Can we disregard the insight, wisdom and commitment to freedom and personal liberty held by such men as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington? Could it be that a man commonly referred to as 'slick willy', who lied before Congress and a Grand Jury, who was disbarred from the practice of law for the disrespect he demonstrated for the law, should be held up as a wiser man and a man of better character and understanding then the founders of the great nation that we all live in today? And do we really believe that the disdain that Barrack Obama holds for those in this nation that disagree with him elevate Barrack to a more lofty position than our first president, who lead this nations fighting men for seven years, weathering great deprivation, hardship and doubt?

We are a nation founded under the idea that the people should be free, and with the understanding that the greatest threat to that freedom is the nation's own government.

This never was more true than it is today.

Barne Defines National Security Interests

A phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday was a stark reminder how the President views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of the far-reaching shift his presidency means to US Foreign Policy, and how aggressively he intends to push the Israelis for a 'peace agreement'.

The United States has a moral obligation to prevent the death of the five million Jews that live in the Middle East. Failing, faltering, or even telegraphing that the United States is no longer committed to the preservation of this peaceful people among their Arab neighbors is a moral failing on the part of this administration. In a recent poorly thought out comment, the President made the blunder of airing his frustration over being unable to force what he wants on a free people. Usually this kind of frustration is directed toward the American people, but in this case it was directed toward the Jews of Israel.

"Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States”

No one can resolve the long running Middle East dispute, Mr. President, because the Islamic Arabs and Islamic Persians that arm them do not want a resolution to the dispute. Unless of course that resolution invloved the utter destruction of Israel, and the massacre of all her people. Demanding peace in a conflict where one side clearly rejects peace is either foolish, heartless or both. It would be like insisting Elin Woods keep fidelty alive and well in her marriage. All the good will in the world on her part will not change the troubled thinking of Tiger. He may turn a page, and I hope he does, but there is nothing that Elin can do to make it so.

Presenting things that are out of ones control as being imperative as a vital US national security interest pressures those we have influence over. Now, one could say it equally pressures the Palestinian Authority with the threat of withdrawal of US support, but clearly the President is not doing that. And even if he did, what are the odds such a position would make a difference to their leadership? No, it is clearly Israel that this thickhead of a president intends to hamstring.

"Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

It's Israel's fault that we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's an interesting notion you have come up with, Mr. President. Novel, really, and from it the notion falls that if Israel were to go away than our troubles with the Islamists that want to kill us and subjugate us would go away too. The survival of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is hindering our own bliss.

Well Mr. President, Israel's security may not be of much importance to you, but it is most certainly of importance to me, and to many of the citizens of this nation. What you are willfully ignoring is that the Israelis are a peaceful people. They simply want to be left alone. They are also a great ally to the United States in a region of the world where we have significant national interests at stake and few allies we can count on. Pushing around the Israelis, telling them it makes you angry that they would be building houses in their nation's capitol, and acting as though the nation that has to abide suicide bombers, random rocket attacks and the constant threat of terrorists is the impediment to peace is to admit you are over your head, and are hoping no one notices.

Don't forget to leave the door unlocked for Otis.

Every Dawg Has His Day

Jay Currie's foil, the very capable but quite liberal Dr. Dawg, has been all in a tizzy about the Tea Party movement, disparaging it's members and claiming that they are white supremacists and others of the non-enlightened among us. Well, here you go, Dawg.




You will not need to wait for evidence to tar the Tea Party people. More of your own are out there generating the story you've been pining for.

Pity that that does not advance your argument.







You can also read about the fun loving infiltrators on Andrew Brietbart's site.















Some would argue that this is part of the democratic process, that these people have a right to speak there mind as well as anyone, and that this effort is just a clever version of political speech.

Such people are lying scumbags.

Anyone capable of making that argument is capable of understanding the difference between presenting one's opinion and disguising yourself to falsely represent your neighbor. It is a type of character assassination, which for the morally challenged among us is specifically listed in the Ten Commandments as sinful behavior. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not limited to truth telling in word only, but in deed as well. It specifically speaks of the sinfulness of misrepresenting the actions and character of another person. Here the left footmen are playing to the left leaning media, looking to provide it with bogus evidence that would support the narrative that they have been passing off as reporting all along.

The hosers.

Hat tip to Bob Parks over at Black and Right.


Update:
My word, the creep that is up to all these hijinks is one Jason Levin, from right here in Portland, Oregon, who works in the Beaverton School District as a Media instructor.

Levin said his goal is to encourage the most extreme rhetoric.

"Our plan is not to shut them down," Levin told Talking Points Memo Monday, "but to infiltrate them and push them farther from the mainstream."

Right, to make the Tea Party types appear odd and out of touch with the mainstream of America.

What other thoughts might this young man grace us with, say perhaps on his My Space page?


"As a black lesbian trapped in the body of a straight white man, I am able to pass as a member of the establishment wile still maintaining my oneness with the spirit of the Earf Muvah."



Jason...put down the beer.

Hyacinth Girl Knocks One Out Of The Park

Everybody's favorite, the Hyacinth Girl, knocked one out of the park yesterday with her thoughtful commentary on the ongoing national discussion on the Federal government takeover of the healthcare industry.

"I’d love to have a safety net, to never have to worry about basic “needs”, but the sacrifice is too great. When we give up responsibility, we also give up our freedom"

Oh yeah, she got all of that.

With that she gets the highly coveted Mark Steyn link, passing Go and collecting her $200.00.

Nicely done, April!

I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka!

The raised, tilted chin, the smirk of superiority, this really is too much.

George Jonas had a pretty good piece on the Obamarama we've all been suffering through:

"Obama's domestic policy of emulating various tried-and-failed models of interventionist government, from European-style socialism to regulatory despotism, has conjured up a multi-trillion dollar deficit, unemployment persisting at 10%, infestations of red tape worms and a general lack of confidence. It fits the style of "No Drama Obama" as a cool, calm, collected way of driving a country into the ground."

Nicely said.