Liberty Reborn » Face of Liberalism

That Is One BIG Pork Chop!

J.J. Jackson — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:12:05 +0000

The old saying goes that when a baby is ugly, very ugly, the parents would have to tie a pork chop around its neck just to get the dog to play with it. Now replace the baby with a car like the Chevy Volt and the pork chop with a boat load of government incentives.

How ugly is the Chevy Volt and how big is the pork chop? The Volt gets 40 miles on a charge (the primary motor without gasoline backup) and costs $41,000 MSRP. It is so ugly that the government has to slap a $7,500 federal tax credit just to get consumers to even consider playing with it! Even then it will still cost $33,500. FYI that is nearly twice what I have ever paid for a new car. My Chevy HHR was somewhere around $18,000.

Of course the Volt will also have a gasoline backup because few people, if anyone, would buy a car that took several hours to charge and then could only go no further than 20 miles from home base. But the rub is that you have to fill the tank with expensive premium gasoline. That tank will extend the range of the Volt 300 miles. Might as well buy a standard gasoline powered car at this rate huh?

Gee, maybe it is time we stop making ugly babies and subsidizing them with tax payer funded pork chops?

Nah, then what would our masters in Washington do with their pathetic lives?

This Year’s October Surprise

J.J. Jackson — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:24:42 +0000

If I told you I knew what was being planned as this year’s October Surprise designed to keep liberals in power throughout Washington would you believe me? Well, to be honest, I do not know for certain what this year’s “Surprise” will be but based on some repetitive reports I am getting a pretty good indication of at least one form that it may take.

I want to highlight two emails out of about two hundred that are causing me to come to the conclusions that I am about the nature of this year’s concocted scenario.

First up is someone whom I will refer simply to as “Alan” which is his real name but not the name he goes by publicly or professionally. Alan writes me:

Excerpt:

I was approached last Monday by an acquaintance of mine. She wanted to know if I was interested in going to the Restoring Honor Rally in August. [She] is not exactly what I would call a conservative so I thought this was odd and I asked her why she would want to go to such an event when she has Obama merch hanging all around her cubicle. FYI we are prohibited by company policy from posting political items in our cubicles or we are at least supposed to be. But anyone that hangs Pro-Obama stuff seems to be getting a pass.

[She] said that she was not going in support but as a group planning to agitate the “tea baggers” and try to get them to be violent during the event to show America, “how ugly these fascists really are,” and that she was part of a, “larger group,” that would be attending for such purposes.

I told her no, I did not want to go and started wondering why she would ask me, of all people this. After doing some digging I think I figured it out. Apparently she overheard me sarcastically, but not sarcastically enough it seems, praising Obama and mocking the Tea Party Movement about a week before this. She apparently missed the start of the conversation where I made clear that I was being sarcastic and the over inflection of my voice during the conversation was apparently missed by her.
Check this out please.

Then there is this from Jenny, a Tea Party activist in Alabama.

J.J., we are getting a lot of really weird people showing up at our meetings as of late. I am not talking about your typical, run of the mill, idiots who think we are some sort of anti-Jewish group or the anarchists that show up every now and again. I am talking about people who come right in to meetings and start saying things right away to our members such as (these are actual quotes)

“So, when are we going to start killing these Washington politicians and take out President Obama?”
“Anyone have a copy of Mein Kampf I can borrow?”

“I’m ready to start a riot! Anyone want to go with me to the Army Base and break down the gates?”
When you engage these people politely we quickly find that these people do not know what the basic principles of our movement and do not even believe in limited government. The guy who actually asked for a copy of Mein Kampf actually went on and on and on about how great nationalized health care will be once we got him talking about it. You ask them questions about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence they do not know anything about them. You ask them about what people like Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Washington believed in and they get glazed looks in their eyes like it is the first time they have heard quotes from these founding fathers.

They tend to leave pretty soon after being confronted but, if you ask me these people are being sent to us trying to infiltrate the Tea Party movement. But they are so woefully educated that they are not mixing in well.

So what is this year’s October Surprise? I think it is going to be leftists frustrated over their fall from grace trying to pass themselves off either as Tea Partiers and then perpetrating acts of violence leading up to the election or trying to engage the Tea Parties in acts of violence to try and discredit the movement.

Geithner Doesn’t Believe …

J.J. Jackson — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:21 +0000

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner just doesn’t believe. That is how he justifies the things that he wants.

When asked what he thought a possible renewal of the last set of income tax cuts (for all Americans and not just the rich as the liberals claim) he said that he did not think they would or should be included in yet another “Stimulus” plan being proposed. He went on to add, “I don’t believe they will have a negative effect on growth.”

Instead Geithner thinks that what should be done is that the cuts should be reworked and kept only for those making less than $200,000. Yeah, because the “rich” do not deserve their money right?

Mr. Geithner goes home every night and repeats the same lies to himself while clenching his eyes tight and praying at his bed side. The rich are evil. The money they have they stole from the working class. The rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And so on and so on.

Maybe if Geithner spent less time believing in liberal fallacies used to promote class warfare and accepted delivery of the truth then he would be a happier man rather than the sad sack that he is today. I am not rich and I do not make more than $200,000 per year by a long shot. But class warfare rhetoric doesn’t work on me because I do not begrudge people their success. That is also why I am not a liberal, just FYI.

In Geithner’s world of make believe only when government takes money from the rich and uses it “wisely” does any good happen. And that is why he and liberals constantly fail. They see our money as their money.

Now, anyone with a brain knows that if you raise taxes on the “rich” it impacts the not so rich. Take a dollar out of their pockets and that is a dollar less for them to buy their next yacht, fancy sports car, big house and so on. Who makes all these things? Us “little people” that’s who. But don’t worry. When the rich don’t buy the products we make the government will step in with a nice welfare check to make up the difference. Problem is that check will be for twice what they collected and our children will be saddled with the bill.

It is a pathetic ideology. But it is the only ideology people like Tim Geithner know.

More Unconstitutional Spending By The Department of Labor

J.J. Jackson — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:44:41 +0000

I haven’t done one of these lists in a while, where I go through the Department of Labor’s own press releases and run down all the unconstitutional money they spend month after month. I want to get back in the habit of posting these wastes of money so here we go:

$459,844 National Emergency Grant to assist 80 workers impacted by layoffs at Cleanpak International Inc. in Clackamas, Ore.
$1.3 million National Emergency Grant supplemental award to continue recovery efforts from the devastation caused by the 2008 storms and flooding in Indiana.
$1.2 million will assist 200 workers affected by layoffs at ATK Launch Systems in Corinne, Utah, thanks to the Labor Department.
$7.4 million in additional funding to nine high schools that have been deemed persistently dangerous by state educational agencies.
$5 Million to Help Minnesota Workers. In an effort to help Minnesotans who are in need of employment and training services, the department has announced a $5,527,108 National Emergency Grant.
The Department released $20,332,402 to Utah for updating its laws to allow workers to use recent earnings to qualify for UI benefits. Another $10,412,823 was awarded to Alaska for the remaining two-thirds of its share of UI funds after the state extended unemployment benefits to individuals who leave jobs for compelling family reasons. All funds were made available through the Recovery Act.
$26 million in Unemployment Insurance Modernization funding for New Mexico
Nearly 450 workers affected by layoffs at Western Montana’s Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc. and Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. will benefit from a $1.8 million DOL grant.
$11,765,089 in unemployment insurance (UI) modernization incentive funds to the state of South Dakota.
$1,753,905 National Emergency Grant increment to Wisconsin to provide continued employment services for 1,334 workers affected by layoffs at multiple companies in Wisconsin.

All of these bullet points, again, come right from the DOL’s own releases. The federal government can only act the spend money in certain ways. These ways are spelled out in our Constitution and are few and limited (see Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, etc.). The concept of providing for the “General Welfare” of the people is not an open ended grant of power to spend money as bureaucrats and politicians may wish to.

I have to say this because every now and again some liberal minded sort tries to make the, “but the Constitution says that government must provide for our General Welfare,” argument to justify these sorts of expenditures. But they are historically ignorant or willfully blind to put forward such lame excuses easily refuted by even a casual glance at history.

How many millions of dollars is the government spending every year on unconstitutional programs? A lot! And the Department of Labor is one of the prime culprits that must be stopped. Every penny of the tax payer’s money is precious and not a single cent of it should be spent doing things the Constitution does not explicitly allow.

A lot of the money the DOL spends is to help people who are unemployed. The problem? This is not a role of the federal government. It does not exist anywhere in our federal Constitution. It is, at best, a state’s power that has been usurped by greedy politicians who do not believe that individual states should have the vast powers they do have and that believe the federal government should be the wellspring of all that is good.

Lindsey Graham: Portrait Of A Principled Idiot

J.J. Jackson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:14:43 +0000

I really did not want to write a second article in a one month about Senator Lindsey Graham considering he is from South Carolina and I am from Pennsylvania. But I must. He is forcing my hand.

I have got to hand it to the Senator. He certainly is principled. Sitting in his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham decided to vote in favor of moving the nomination of Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest nominee to the United States Supreme Court, out of committee. Senator Graham says that elections have consequences and this is why he crossed over and voted with the Democrats. Thus, in his mind, he is saying that because President Obama is sitting in the White House The President should get his nominee.

But while being principled he is also an idiot. He is an idiot because he is ignoring the fact that he was also elected. And he was elected by a constituency that vehemently opposes another left wing radical being placed upon the Supreme Court. His excuse to vote for Kagan is nothing more than the ramblings of an ill mind that is looking for justification to do something he wants to do anyway. Because if he really believed what he said about the consequences of elections he would be telling Obama that his constituents elected him to stand in the way of the further leftward march of America.

But he is not doing this because he does not really believe in his own excuse.

Senator Graham even said that there were, “100 reasons,” for him to vote against this nominee. But he tosses those, “100 reasons,” out the window because he wants to further Kagan’s nomination and get her seated upon the Supreme Court. There is, to be blunt, no other reason for his action. Most people would say if there is one reason for something with 100 reasons against doing that thing that the 100 reasons would outweigh the one and the action in question would not be taken. Not Senator Graham though.

Yes Mr. Graham, elections do have consequences. You, for example, were elected to the United States Senate. The United States Senate is tasked with the role of advice and consent over the President’s judicial nominees. That role was given to the Senate to ensure that a President would not appoint unqualified persons to the bench. The scope of who these unqualified persons are ranges widely from a President’s own relatives with no judicial experience to someone who is mentally incompetent to a wacko who could not care less about the United States Constitution, upholding limited government and keeping the Congress and the President in check.

The election of Senator Graham to a role in the Senate where he is supposed to act as a check and a balance is apparently not a consequential event if we are to believe the Senator’s own words and compare them with his actions. To Senator Graham the only election that matters in this case is the election of President Obama. To me this seems very convenient for the Senator and very inconvenient for America. Does this now mean that Lindsey Graham will support any law in Congress that President Obama supports? After all, elections have consequences right Senator?

Saying you are being principled is one thing. But getting tied up in knots so as to only selectively apply the principles you claim to hold dear makes you a principled idiot. What Mr. Graham is showing is that even a fool can have the courage of his wrongly conceived convictions.

He is the truth. And it is a truth that needs to be impressed upon Senator Graham.

Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama because he sees her as someone that will help further his goals. President Obama’s goals are to strip us further of our liberties, act in an extra constitutional manner and turn America into a land where top down government control is the norm of our existence. I know, I know, liberals protest at such a blunt portrayal of what they believe in. They will swear that such is not the case. But tell me honestly, has anything that they have done proven that my description is not accurate? No.

Ms. Kagan, once on the bench, will rule, repeatedly and often, to further these desires. And when she does, each and every time she does, there will be people clearly responsible for these rulings. First and foremost will be Ms. Kagan herself. Next on the list will be President Obama. Following him will be all the goofy Democrats in the Senate who would not know the Constitution if it was put in front of them with a big neon flashing sign saying, “Constitution,” and who will rubber stamped this nomination. But behind all these sorry souls will be none other than Senator Lindsey Graham. Behind Mr. Graham will be any other Republican that votes to confirm her in the full Senate such as Susan Collins and Dick Lugar who have both voiced support for this horrid candidate for the nation’s highest court.

And because of your role in this matter Mr. Graham, you will be just as responsible for the destruction of this country as all the rest who were previously named. But you are too interested in being a principled idiot to care.

=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com

Why Shirley Sherrod Deserved To Be Fired

J.J. Jackson — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:00:12 +0000

Wow, a lot of people are hedging over the whole Shirley Sherrod fiasco right now. For the record my stance was that she should not have been fired because of her admission that at one time she was a racist. Are we clear on that?

Unlike a lot of people, including Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who said of the case that she was fired because, “There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person,” I have not claimed that her past racism should be the issue for which she should be fired.

Do not lump me in with these people that knee-jerked including the Obama Administration.

But I will say the same thing I have been saying since this story broke and that is that Shirley Sherrod deserved to be fired. Yes, she deserved to be fired because of other comments she made in the same speech which make her wholly unqualified to be in our government – a government of laws and of equality before those laws.

After discussing how she over came her racism Sherrod admitted that she had grown. But rather than growing up, she grew sideways and exchanged one bigoted attitude for another. She said of the event that cured her of racism that, “It was revealed to me [through this event] that it’s about poor versus those who have.”

Sherrod traded her race colored glasses for class warfare colored glasses. She espoused the opposite of American values which is that our public servants treat all equally and instead issued a verdict that her new role in life was to help the poor who were struggling against the vile rich (i.e. the “haves”). Such a statement is Marxism to its core.

She has not, to my knowledge, repudiated this new, new outlook on her mission in life. It is an outlook that is disgusting and if espoused by any public servant is dangerous because they will use the levers and switches of government to further this goal they have set. To state that she sees the new struggle in which she must fight as the struggle of the poor against the rich, Sherrod would, logically, use her role to beat down those she deems have too much in favor of those that have too little. She has, after all, already admitted that as a racist she was willing to do just that. We do not, as Americans, want people like this in out government. And yes, I know we elect similar sad sacks like this regularly. That, my friends, is not an excuse.

So while everyone is distracting the issue towards Sherrod’s statements on race it is her statement on her economic and political philosophy go largely under the radar. Even conservatives are guilty of this. Instead of stating that Sherrod is wholly unqualified to understand the role of our government in our lives they are focusing on unimportant parts of her speech.

We have a long way to go in solving the ills of this country if this event is any indication. And Shirley Sherrod is just the latest Marxist in our government exposed.

When Is A Tax Not A Tax?

J.J. Jackson — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:38:50 +0000

A tax is not a tax when Obama says it is not a tax. A tax is a tax when Obama says that it is. And at any time a tax that was not a tax can become a tax that is a tax! Confused? You should be.

According to court documents filed by the Obama Administration in support of its unconstitutional health care plan passed by Congress, they are defending the power of the individual mandate with the claim that the government has the “power to lay and collect taxes.” This report comes from the New York Times so spare me the complaint that this is some bad interpretation put forth by conservative opponents to Obamacare!

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Now the kicker! Just last year President Obama claimed that the health care plan was not a tax!

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Yep. I even bolded it and italicized it for you just so you could set it in Obama’s own words when he was on with George Stephanopoulos!

So we have gone from Obamacare isn’t a tax to it is a tax in less than a year. Well, I guess that is about the best we can expect from a man whose qualifications to be President was that he read a teleprompter really well.

How’s that hope and change thingie working out for you Obama voters eh? Isn’t arbitrary and capricious government great?

Climate Quacks Adopt Al Gore Strategy

J.J. Jackson — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:20:21 +0000

Al Gore used to do all sorts of media appearances and interviews over his theory of man made global warming. Then, as time went on, he started getting asked more and more serious questions about his religion and many scientists started to put together rebuttals seeking comments. Al Gore tried, for a time, to debate the topic but it soon became clear that he really didn’t know much about what he was talking about. So he abruptly adopted a strategy of absolutely, positively no questions from audience participants or skeptics with actual science on their side. If there were any questions asked at any event and of the Priest of the Church of Man Made Global Warming and Society for a Flat Earth they were highly vetted and limited in number – the sort of questions that Al Gore wouldn’t have to worry about embarrassing himself by answering.

Well it seems others in the Mann (as in Michael Mann) made Global Warming camp are adopting the Al Gore Strategy. Reports the New York Times:

Andy Revkin reports at Dot Earth that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, faulted in the past for a siege mentality, has urged its participating researchers to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press questions about their group work to supervisors.

Hmmm. I guess when you have so many lies flying around this way and that that you need to have someone keep track of them all and give official responses. Can’t have people going to the media telling different stories all the time.

Hey, if you tell the truth you don’t have to have your responses vetted!

Obama Rushes To Reid’s Side

J.J. Jackson — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:12:33 +0000

Senator Harry Reid is in deep trouble in Nevada as the midterm elections loom. He has been trailing Republican Sharron Angle in poll after poll and the people of the State have repeatedly stated in other polls that they have no confidence in his ability to lead and represent the people. So in comes President Obama, the candidate killer. President Obama has taken to the stump for a lot of candidates lately and many of them wind up crashing and burning as he brings his shadow over their campaigns.

At a fundraiser for Harry Reid Obama attacked Sharron Angle as “extreme” which follows with the way liberals tend to attack their opponents standing up against the big spending federal government. Why is she extreme? Well because, according to Obama, she wants to, “phase out and privatize Social Security and Medicare … Wants to eliminate our investment in clean energy.”

Of course, this is extreme to a liberal like Obama or Reid who do not still, to this day, understand that Social Security and Medicare are not powers granted to our federal government and that investing in clean energy is likewise outside the bounds of federal powers. To a liberal being extreme means believing that the written Constitution actually means something. To a liberal being extreme means not letting liberals do whatever they want to do and spend what they want to spend.

Social Security is insolvent (and unconstitutional) but President Obama ignores that and attacks Angle because he wants people to believe otherwise and buy their votes through keeping them ignorant. Medicare has no federal authority backing it but likewise it is another vote buying scheme that liberals have to keep going even if it means scratching the eyes out of every Senior in America to keep them from seeing such.

To Obama, basically, being “extreme” means standing up for and promoting America and the founding documents that every elected official in Washington DC, including himself, swore to uphold and protect. He never meant it of course and shows that on a daily basis. And when someone dares to suggest that maybe we should uphold and protect the documents and the nation that our elected officials swore to then that means they are “extreme.”

Liberals hate the truth. But eventually the truth smacks them so hard between the eyes that they are forced to confront it. You cannot expect any truth or sanity from a man that has repeatedly proven he cares nothing for liberty.

Sestak, With Talking Points In Hand, Proves Himself Not Ready For Prime Time

J.J. Jackson — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:41:20 +0000

Joe Sestak is pretty much your typical moonbat liberal. If a bill regulates something and acts beyond the Constitutional powers granted to Congress he is pretty much for said bill. Mr. Sestak, a current Congressman for Pennsylvania, is trying hard to gain the Senate seat held currently by Snarlin Arlen Specter the Defector who has being sent into forced retirement come next year.

Sestak has proven during his tenure in the United States Congress that he is everything I said in the first two sentences of this article. A prime example of this is his support for Cap and Trade which is currently stalled in the Democrat controlled Senate after passing the Democrat controlled House. The bill would impose limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from industry and tax fuels that industry uses meaning that anything business at all that requires some sort of combustion to create a product from steel to baking bread will be hit with regulations. If not now due to exemptions then at some point down the road because if history has shown us anything it is that liberals hate it when anyone is excluded from their control.

Companies that need to use more than their allotment to produce products would be taxed and of course they will have to hire more lawyers and also add carbon accountants to their pay roll to help keep track of the new regulations. All this adds to the cost of the goods said company will produce and that added cost will be wrapped up in the price we citizens will pay when we by those products. Oops. Sorry liberals, I guess I just gave away the big scam huh? That what you are really going to do is tax the citizens with this plan because businesses do not pay taxes. They just collect them on behalf of the government. Economics 101.

Pat Toomey commented after visiting a local steel mill that, “I’m concerned that if cap-and-trade became law, it would put [Frontier Steel] out of business.”

Sestak’s response? After his own visit trying to put on a face of being for the citizens of Pennsylvania at another company he pulled out the Evil Republican card. He said according to the Tribune Review, “Pat Toomey is in the pocket of big oil and big oil doesn’t want alternative energy.”

Yeah, the same old same old from a man whose responses always seem to be vaguely on target of the general criticism of him but wildly out of place in the grand scheme of things. I don’t think, based on Toomey’s own website that Sestak’s talking point holds much truth considering that Pat states and promotes, “Other sources of energy,” aside from oil including, “natural gas in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale and the production of nuclear power.” How can he be in the pocket of Big Oil when supporting these other sources? And do you mean he is in the pocket of Big Oil like President Obama is? The largest recipient of donations from BP and their employees in years?

I hate to tell Mr. Sestak this but certain industries just cannot function on wind or solar power. In fact many of our heavy industry and even mid and light industry cannot do this. Try telling large steel manufactures like Allegheny Ludlum that they have to use “alternative energy” to heat their steel slabs. It simply is not going to happen and if you want me to work through the math I will be more than happy to show you why it won’t happen.

I am sorry Mr. Sestak that Pat Toomey doesn’t support gerbil power. But don’t lie ok? Especially just to draw attention away from the fact that you supported Cap and Trade, voted for it and now don’t want it to be an albatross around your neck.

Joe Sestak is, sadly, just another liberal looking to up their resume, status, power and salary. And spouting asinine talking points to avoid responsibility and discussing the issues in a serious manner just further proves he is not anywhere near ready for prime time. And whatever you do, don’t ask him for Constitutional justification for anything he desires. That would be just too much for his little mind to handle once you confront, destroy and correct all the talking points that would certainly ensue. Then he will probably sue you for the emotional distress you caused him by making him think too hard.