PPC Homepage

Will the Democrats Create Viet Nam II?

by Mr. Bob | 4:26 pm, June 30, 2009

#hhrs #tcot #redco #gwot
As we begin to see troops withdraw and Iraqi’s celebrate, remember that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durban, Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats now in charge all said the surge would not work. Reid and Durban said the “war was lost”. …just remember that. John Kerry said our troops were terrorizing people in the night, John Murtha accused marines of cold blooded murder….all untrue, and all charges aquitted.

These are the men and women now running the war.

Thanks to the fortitude of the previous administration the surge worked, the streets are safe (less people are killed in Iraq than many major US cities) but is it too soon? The troops sure want to come home…they always do, the job for the most part sucks. But if we withdraw too quickly, the Iraqi’s will suffer. Even today, the terrorists celebrated our leaving too…by killing 27 people.

Pray that Obama will have more wisdom than Richard Nixon and the Democrat controlled house and senate did in 1972.

Politicians did a similar thing in Viet Nam, our brave soldiers won nearly every battle and pushed the enemy back, but in the end the politicians withdrew allowing the enemy to overun the innocents in the country. We wrung our hands..and watched millions massacred…just so we could feel good that we finally got out.

July 4 Break–Link Roundup

by elpresidente | 2:34 pm, June 30, 2009

I’m off to the fetid swamp of power nation’s capital for a much needed break–in the meantime, check out the following links for an excellent roundup of political news, analysis, and events.

Enjoy those freedoms while they last–and keep up the good fight for liberty!

Liberty on the Rocks:

People’s Press Collective:

Complete Colorado:

Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0:

Face the State:

Clear the Bench Colorado:

Obama, the media’s little darling

by Mr. Bob | 11:55 am, June 30, 2009

#tcot #rnc #msm #media
Great video by the RNC, even if (especially if) you are an Obama supporter you must see this. Even liberals should worry that the media is no longer objective and they don’t even hide it.

Clear the Censorship

by Ari | 9:33 am, June 30, 2009

I am utterly astounded that so many Colorado “conservatives” endorse censorship. Let’s get this straight, friends: if you endorse censorship, you are an enemy of liberty. This is just not a negotiable issue.

Amendment 54, a campaign censorship law passed by (bare) majority last year, thankfully has been suspended by a Denver court. This is not a surprise, given the measure violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and contradicts Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, which states:

Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

This is hardly ambiguous text.

I was therefore surprised to read an article at Clear the Bench Colorado endorsing Amendment 54. The article reminds us that the measure “passed by a vote of the citizens of Colorado.” So what? Since when do Republicans endorse pure democracy? The entire point of constitutional government is to protect individual rights from mob rule.

Here is the central argument from Clear the Bench:

Once again, a judge has acted on the behalf of special interest groups intent on “gaining favor and contracts from public officials” through political contributions — “probably triggering a flood of campaign contributions” from those seeking to curry favor while the ‘temporary injunction’ remains in effect.

The same argument could apply to McCain-Feingold. Does Clear the Bench also endorse the federal censorship law and decry the Supreme Court’s limitation of it?

The purpose of Amendment 54 (now part of Article 28 of the Colorado Constitution) is to prevent recipients of no-bid government contracts from contributing to campaigns. The reasoning behind the restriction is obvious enough: people who benefit from tax dollars ought not influence the spending of those tax dollars. But while that reasoning points to a legitimate problem, it does not justify censorship.

With governments at all levels spending so much money through forced wealth transfers — about 45 percent of the total economy — political pull is just the way things operate. The only real way to solve that problem is to cut government spending and restore a free market. Until that happens, campaign censorship laws only further violate our rights without addressing the fundamental problem.

At a less fundamental level, if there is a problem particularly with no-bid contracts, then the solution is to restrict or eliminate no-bid contracts (and open contracts to bidding).

If we were to extend the argument that people who receive government funds should be censored, that would apply also to every student who takes government-backed loans, every senior citizen who accepts Social Security or Medicare, every employee and contractor of the government, and so on. In other words, given today’s mixed economy and high rate of government spending, the logical conclusion of Amendment 54 is near-universal censorship.

Amendment 54 is shockingly broad; its limitations extend far beyond any direct connection between a no-bid contract and related taxes. Consider the details:

* Amendment 54 prevents contractors, “for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter,” from contributing to any political party or state or local candidate. There need be absolutely no connection between the political race and the contract.

* A contractor cannot “induce by any means” a campaign contribution “on behalf of his or her immediate family member.” An “immediate family member” is defined as “any spouse, child, spouse’s child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, or domestic partner.” In other words, a contractor cannot seek to persuade these people that they ought to financially support any candidate. To be enforced, the measure requires thought police.

* The measure also prohibits campaigns from “intentionally” accepting funds proscribed by the measure. What is “intentional?” How is that proved? What this does is allow big-moneyed interests to go after candidates they don’t like, discouraging potential candidates who can’t afford a team of lawyers from running.

Amendment 54 is bad law. It is unjust law. It is unconstitutional law. It deserves to be thrown out.

Conservatives need to learn that the opposite of “judicial activism” is not mob rule. Judges play a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the individual from the whims of the majority.

It is a shame that Clear the Bench, which has undertaken a good and noble cause in advocating courts that uphold the rule of law, has muddied the waters by endorsing censorship. Let’s hope that organization and conservatives more broadly correct that failing.

Sotomayor guilty of “poor performance” in her ruling

by Mr. Bob | 8:39 am, June 30, 2009

#tcot #gop #redco

We are all seeing the consequences of America being fooled by a leftist into the highest office once again. It is happening much quicker than even those of us who warned you about Obama thought possible.

It seems that in extreme blind hatred for George Bush and anything Republican (fueled by the Democrat run media) the American people have elected a far left socialist candidate bent on taking over society, overwhelming the system (see ACORN manifesto) to make life “fair” for all people…. using your tax dollars of course.

Of course Obama didn’t run as a leftist,because America is still conservative, but his record showed he was the farthest left member in the senate, his radical associations showed he would hang out with Marxists and America haters. He counted on ignorance…and he got it…especially from young people, and from the “minority” community.

Millions chose to elect him based on what he “said” rather than what his record showed. Many in the minority community and some in the Anglo chose to elect Obama because of his color…and proved themselves to be racists (people who judge the worth of someone based on race rather than content of character.)

Which brings us to Obama’s first nominee to the supreme Court. A woman who admittedly believes white men can’t judge as well as her because she is Latino. What if a white judge said he was better suited to judge because he was not a minority, black, Latino or whatever? That the black’s experiences would make him or her unable to render sound judgment? They would RIGHTLY be called a racist. We have proof now from the supreme court that Sonya Sotomayor is a racist.

COLORADO JUDICIAL NETWORK

For Immediate Release: June 29, 2009

Contact: Jim Pfaff, jim@iresearchanddata.com. 303-957-8600

Not one Supreme Court Justice Approved Sotomayor ruling in Ricci Case

Sotomayor guilty of “poor performance” in her ruling


DENVER, CO: The United States Supreme Court today ruled that Frank Ricci and his fellow New Haven, CT firefighters should not be subject to “reverse discrimination.” In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned the summary judgment ruling in the 2nd Circuit of New York by Judge Sonia Sontomayor and her fellow panelists. And all nine Supreme Court Justices determined that the Sotomayor panel was in error in ruling on the case without considering its constitutionality.

“Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error,” said Wendy Long, Chief Counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network and a former U.S. Supreme Court Clerk.

The case, decided by Judge Sotomayor, raised significant questions regarding race and merit-based promotion in America’s workplaces. In Ricci, a group of fire fighters challenged the City of New Haven’s refusal to certify test results for promotion within the fire department. According to test results and department protocol, only white and Hispanic fire fighters would be eligible for promotion. None of the black test takers placed high enough to claim any of the available positions. Fearing a lawsuit by minority applicants, New Haven refused to certify the exam results and no one was promoted. The City’s decision was allegedly based upon a desire to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was despite the substantial efforts taken to ensure a race-neutral examination.

“No case can give us a better view of Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy than her decision in Ricci vs. DiStefano,” said Colorado Judicial Network spokesperson, Jim Pfaff, “This case strikes at the heart of advancement in our society.”

“Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession,” said Wendy Long. “What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.”

Long continued, “The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor.”

One hundred-eighteen people took the promotional exams administered by the New Haven Fire Department. One exam was for promotion to Lieutenant, and the other to the rank of Captain. The racial breakdown of test takers included 68 white, 27 black and 23 Hispanic applicants. The breakdown of those who passed the tests included 41 whites, 9 blacks and 6 Hispanics.

Eighteen white fire fighters and one Hispanic fire fighter brought suit for discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the very same Civil Rights protections cited by the City.

“The impact of this decision on workplaces is staggering,” said Pfaff, “If merit-based opportunity is not the best standard for promotion, what is? Should promotion be based on racial quotas? Could an otherwise qualified applicant be denied advancement because there are too many of his race already promoted? How will these decisions impact the workplace?”

“Judge Sotomayor’s logic was clearly flawed as it runs counter to the American system that has made us the greatest country in the world,” said Pfaff, “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold or reverse Judge Sotomayor’s decision will have an important impact on employment law in the United States. It puts a bright light on the necessity of have judges who follow the U.S. Constitution and the stated law instead of personal opinion or ‘empathy.’ The Court’s decision may also very well determine the fate of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.”

The Colorado Judicial Network is a coalition of citizens joined together to educate Coloradans on the Federal Courts and its nominees. In partnership with the Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com), Colorado Judicial Network works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote.

Colorado Judicial Network Members are as follows:

  • John Andrews, President, Backbone America. Former Colorado Senate President.
  • Jon Caldara, President, Independence Institute.
  • Mark Hillman, former State Treasurer.
  • Jeff Crank, State Director, Americans for Prosperity.
  • Jim Pfaff, Judicial Confirmation Network Colorado coordinator. former State Director, Americans for Prosperity and former President/CEO, Colorado Family Institute.
  • Kevin Lundberg, Colorado State Senator

For additional information about Sotomayor, visit www.aboutsoniasotomayor.com

Supreme Court Rebukes Sotomayor’s Dismissive Approach to Basic Fairness

by Ben | 7:46 am, June 30, 2009

More important than the fact that Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s appellate ruling simply was overturned yesterday was that her ruling was that she treated the meritorious (and ultimately victorious) claims of the New Haven fire fighters so dismissively.
It seems that in Sotomayor’s world race-neutral, merit-based promotion systems are scarcely even worthy of [...]

Democrats’ health-care proposals would entrench status quo

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, June 30, 2009

Economist Arnold Kling has an excellent essay at National Review on-line. I’ll quote only what Arnold himself has quoted from the article on his blog:
The debate we should be having is over whether restraint in our use of medical services should be initiated by government officials or left to consumers. The Democrats want to avoid [...]

Who’s worse, Sotomayor or the Supreme Court?

by Rossputin | 1:17 am, June 30, 2009

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s defining decision, the case of Ricci v DeStefano, in which she ruled that it was OK for the city of New Haven, Connecticut to refuse to use the results of tests for promotion of fire fighters after no blacks passed the tests.

Sotomayor’s ruling was, in my opinion, obviously wrong. In fact, the 5-4 decision somewhat masks the fact that all or nearly all of the Justices disagreed with her handling of the case even if they upheld her decision. As the editors of National Review note, “The only consensus the nine justices found was that the handling of case by Sotomayor’s three-judge appeals-court panel was shoddy. Even the four dissenting justices agreed that the Second Circuit applied the wrong legal standard.” And as the WSJ points out, “In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that while she disagreed with the decision to reverse the lower court ruling, there were questions about how it was decided. Based on the lower court’s mistaken focus on intent, she wrote, ‘ordinarily a remand for fresh consideration would be in order.’”

So I don’t know what troubles me more, the fact that Sotomayor ruled the way she did or the fact that 4 Supreme Court justices agreed with her.

Here’s a quote from the WSJ’s take on the case which bears repeating:

Ginsburg opens her opinion by observing that “the white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” To which Alito replies:

“Sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law–of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

Of course, Alito hits the nail on the head when it comes to the major question surrounding Sotomayor. She’s said specifically that she does not believe impartial application of the law is possible – and seems to question whether it’s even desirable. Don’t forget that Sotomayor’s decision was obviously racist: whether you want to say it was against whites or for non-whites, it was made on the basis of race. So much for Obama’s claim to represent post-racialism.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision, on the last day of their term, will be great ammunition for believers in the Constitution who want to challenge Sotomayor’s nomination (or for Republicans who just want to challenge her for partisan political purposes.) That said, I don’t think it substantially diminishes her chances of being approved which I believe remain very high if no other smoking gun is found to show her to be unqualified – which she surely is.

Justice Ginsburg’s arguments were remarkably weak, something you’d expect from a partisan leftist law student, for example arguing that Sotomayor’s decision was OK because the white fire fighters had no guarantee of a promotion and because nobody else had been given a promotion. She must have twisted her cerebral cells into knots trying to find a way to claim that invalidating the results of THE test that was to decide promotions simply because not enough minorities passed is somenow not racist.

According to AP’s article about the decision, “Ginsburg said the court should have assessed ‘the starkly disparate results’ of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city’s 21 fire captains was African-American.”

Her rhetoric assumes that “diversity” trumps equal protection, that diversity is a paramount goal in itself, and that diversity would for some reason make the fire department a better place (or at least not worse), which for a place as results-oriented as a fire department is very hard to believe.

Again, it is simply remarkable that 4 Justices could find that Sotomayor’s obvious racist and improper decision was OK. At least she lost, but the closeness of the vote says a tremendous amount about how political our Supreme Court has become – a great tragedy for our nation.

In the long run, unless one of the “conservative” Justices leaves, I expect the Court to be somewhat more aggressive in challenges to “civil rights” legislation as people who fall victim to the tendency of such legislation to penalize whites will argue that society has generally moved past the need or acceptability of such provisions. And they will be right.

In the meantime, the poster child for affirmative action will be elevated to one of the most prestigious and important jobs on Earth, simply because the man who has the right to nominate her was elevated to the most important job on earth for no real reason other than his color.

For those of you who are jarred by that suggestion, ask yourself this: Would a white junior senator from the Midwest with less experience (in government, the private sector, or anything else really) than any other candidate ever get even close to either party’s nomination? Of course not. Really, go through the list of US Senators and ask yourself honestly if any of the 10 or 20 most junior members of the Senate (at least those who have never been a governor) would stand a chance? Again, of course not. Yes, that’s right: Barack Obama is president primarily because he’s black…and that would be fine if he had a clue about the Constitution – but he doesn’t. And now he want’s to poison the most important court in the world by appointing someone with as little understanding of our nation and as much contempt for the vision of the Founders (including, not least, the rule of law rather than feelings or whims) as he has.

SHARETHIS.addEntry( {
title : ‘Who's worse, Sotomayor or the Supreme Court?’,
url : ‘http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/who-s-worse-sotomayor-or-the-supreme-cou’},
{ button: true }
) ;

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Conservative Democrats bribed “name your price” to get Cap and Trade passed

by Mr. Bob | 9:19 pm, June 29, 2009

#tcot #capandtrade #stimulus
I am not a big Michael Savage fan he’s way too emotional for me, though I do listen from time to time. However on this day he had a guest. Listen in as Jeff Kuhner, Columnist/Editor of the Washington Times, and he remarks about Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill. A must hear.

and here’s a nice jingle about cap and trade to help us understand how it all works.

Electricity Rates Would Skyrocket

by Ari | 1:54 pm, June 29, 2009

Listen to Barack Obama explain, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” (Via Joshua Sharf.)

Rule of Law:1, Empathy:0 – Supremes reverse Sotomayor

by Director | 12:00 pm, June 29, 2009

Breaking News: the U.S. Supreme Court just reversed Sotomayor (Monday, 29 June 8AM MDT)
The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
This decision must be considered a victory for [...]

Ricci Decision a Phyrric Victory

by TJ Wihera | 11:43 am, June 29, 2009

In its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court sided with Firefighters in New Haven who were discriminated against because they were white.
As Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:
We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in [...]

The Communist Party Loves the Energy Bill

by Mr. Bob | 8:42 am, June 29, 2009

#tcot #gop #energy
Why would that be? Read their view yourself and see.

Mark Steyn: Burst Bubbles of Big Government and Political Soap Operas

by Ben | 7:51 am, June 29, 2009

With his usual eloquence and wit, the venerable Mark Steyn on National Review Online makes a terrific point about the connection between centralized state spending & power and bizarre behavior by politicians:
The real bubble is a consequence of big government. The more the citizenry expect from the state, the more our political class will depend [...]

The uninsured and lying with statistics

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, June 29, 2009

David Harsanyi has another great column in the Denver Post, this time how many people in the U.S. are uninsured. Some excerpts:
Did you know that about 300 million Americans went without food, water and shelter at some point last year?
I am a survivor.

<!–
OAS_AD(‘Block’);
//–>

If you were blessed with the prodigiously creative and cunning mind of [...]

I miss my girl Parker. Please help.

by jccaldara | 11:30 am, June 28, 2009

This fall it will be eight years since I lost my one-year-old daughter, Parker, to cancer.  She was our only child at the time.  I try not to talk about it as often as I’d like, for fear of it overtaking me.  Needless to say there is a hole in heart, in my soul, that [...]

Eight Republican representatives that voted for Cap & Trade

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:31 pm, June 27, 2009

Click the links for their contact information. Cap and trade passed by seven votes.


Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

BlueCarp

Waxman-Markey passes with help of 8 traitors

by Rossputin | 10:36 pm, June 26, 2009

So many people will be writing about the House of Representatives passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill on Friday afternoon that I will for now keep my comments relatively brief.

First of all, this may not be a bad thing because it’s a tremendous weapon to use against many Democrats and the 8 Republicans who voted for the bill. (More on that in a minute.)

I think it’s 50/50 whether the bill will even get a vote in the Senate. There’s no chance they’ll get 60 votes for it which means that the Democrats might try using the “reconciliation” process, normally reserved for budget items, which can with 50 votes get a bill passed without the possibility of a filibuster. However, that would be an extremely risky tactic politically and I think they’re not better than even money to be able to round up those 50 votes.

Instead of fulminate about how disastrous this legislation would be were it to come into effect, let me simply say that 219 people just voted for what would be the biggest tax hike in history during our worst recession in many years, and with essentially zero expected improvement in “global warming”, the primary stated goal of this monstrosity.

Over the next couple of weeks, I plan to read much or most of the bill and offer you several-times-weekly tidbits of just what the House approved. For example, did you know that the bill has a provision about getting real estate appraisers to boost the appraised value of homes that meet some sort of “green” standard? Nice understanding of a free market, eh? Not really a surprise for the party of Fannie Mae and expensive homes for people with bad (or no) credit.

The main point I want to make today is that the Republicans who voted for the measure must be punished. I urge everyone who lives in the district of any of these traitors to let them and others know (by contacting their offices, by calling into radio shows and writing to newspapers, and by talking to your friends and colleagues) what you think of their votes. Furthermore, I urge everyone, regardless of where you live, to support any truly pro-liberty primary challenger to these spineless turncoats.

Here is the wall of shame:
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the graphic)

Mary Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Mike Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Mark Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Leonard Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
Frank LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
John McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Dave Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

I note in particular that Mark Kirk, whom I’m embarrassed to say I supported in his very first campaign based on a Club for Growth recommendation, is said to be considering a run for the Senate. I DO NOT CARE IF HE IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION THAN SOME OTHER REPUBLICAN. Any Republican who would vote for this bill deserves our everlasting enmity, much in the way that George W. Bush does for “abandoning free market principles to save the free market” and giving the Obama Administration the moral high ground in continuing bailouts which Bush unforgivably began.

These traitors are trying to thread the needle, to be “moderate” during a time when “moderation” means caving in to the destruction of our nation. As Dante said, the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality. If I believed in Hell, I’d be certain that these 8 Congressmen have just made their reservations. And while I don’t know where they eventually will go, I hope everyone who cares about the economic future of our children and grandchildren will do whatever they can to make sure those people do not return to Congress.

SHARETHIS.addEntry( {
title : ‘Waxman-Markey passes with help of 8 traitors’,
url : ‘http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/waxman-markey-passes-with-help-of-8-trai’},
{ button: true }
) ;

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

A “Must Read” Financial Who Dunnit

by redrocks | 5:53 pm, June 26, 2009

Ever wonder how everything, financially, seems to have gotten so skewed? Ever have the sense it’s somehow related? Rolling Stone magazine isn’t usually a first source for financial analysis, but this guy, Matt Taibbi, has it nailed (hint: Goldman Sachs did it). From the company’s humble beginnings to its current, “figurative” [...]

Transparent candidate; opapue president, part II

by amy | 4:53 pm, June 26, 2009

COST praised candidate Obama for his commitment to transparency, but as a president he has failed miserably.  If the 1200 page Waxman-Markey global warming bill passes through Congress and the president signs it, he will once again break his pledge to be the most transparent administration.  The legislation, which the Wall Street Journal calls the largest tax [...]

Must Read of the Decade

by Mr. Bob | 2:22 pm, June 26, 2009

#greed #goldmansachs #finance #tcot

and believe it or not it comes from Rolling Stone. How Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin and short term greed killed the economy for regular folk. Let me know what you think.

I say get a rope.
The Great American Bubble Machine

Don’t Let Unjust Justices Make Colorado Puppies Sad

by Director | 12:00 pm, June 26, 2009

Restoring accountability to Colorado’s judiciary, upholding the Rule of Law, and defending YOUR rights as citizens and taxpayers against the worst abuses of the Mullarkey Court is serious business.  Extremely serious – but that doesn’t mean that we can’t point out some seriously funny aspects, too.
In 2008, Colorado’s very crowded ballot not only featured a dizzying array [...]

Blow by Blow of the Cap & Trade Freight Train

by Mr. Bob | 11:14 am, June 26, 2009

#capandtrade #tcot

Malkin is reporting on the ramrodding of Cap and Trade with a live blog

Here’s a good quote from Rep Pence

“Last night at 3:00am, House Dems filed 309-page amendment and denied 224 GOP amendments. Three hours, 1 amendment filed. What’s the hurry? What are we hiding – that we can’t afford more time for Americans to examine what’s in the bill?”

an even better quote from Michelle Malkin;

“Members of Congress don’t have enough time to read through the 1,200-page cap-and-trade (truth in advertising: cap-and-TAX) monstrosity that will radically alter the economy in the name of the environment…
…but they have time to pause for a moment of silence to mark the death of Hollyweirdo Michael Jackson.“

For the simplest way to find your representative’s phone number, if you see him or her on this list, is to click on this link and enter your zip code. Don’t wait–the vote is coming today or tomorrow and the Dems are now making noises like they think they have the votes. Turn back that tide!

Friday’s Health Care Funny

by jccaldara | 11:04 am, June 26, 2009

Our great cartoonist appropriately asks — if the public option is so good, “why would they include an exemption clause on page 114?”  Yeah, it’s really great for everyone… BUT them.  Funny how that works.

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

Cap and Trade idea based on debatable science..but the left won’t debate it

by Mr. Bob | 8:33 am, June 26, 2009

#tcot #hhrs #climate #capandtrade #socialism

Call your congressman and urge them to read it before they sign it…NO ONE has read it yet, just like the so called “stimulus” package.

Done and settled, it’s a fact said scientist Democrat Politician Albert Gore. However as most people who read this blog know since they read other things than what Al Gore and Dem politicians say, man-made Global warming is quite debatable and is debated among people much smarter than me…or Al Gore for that matter.

Don’t confuse the situation with facts say the Dem politicians (or the “scientists” who receive grants to study how bad humans are for the planet) they wont’ even debate it. Global warming is here (in spite of the last two winters being the coldest in recent GLOBAL history) but just in case people are confused because global temps are down the last few years let’s change the rhetoric to “climate change”…It’s just vague enough to cause confusion.

It’s all about control my friends. The Democratic party (and some on the so-called right as well) just want to control all business, all commerce and you. They can’t do that when we are free to buy whatever is cheapest, whatever is easiest to get, that is just too much freedom for them, so they latch on to anything (whether it is based in fact or not) to gather control of sections of the “free” market. Don’t let them do it.

The way C&T works to make “green, clean” energy more competitive is by making traditional energy sources so expensive, the “green’ ones can compete. Sound like a good plan for a hurting economy to you?



READ Waxman-Markey: Death Knell for U.S. Jobs, Low-Cost Energy

READ TROJAN HEARSE



Go here and call your Congressman right now.



Tell your Congressman to vote against H.R. 2454., the Waxman-Markey legislation.



We don’t have a moment to delay.



Congress is going to vote on Cap and Trade legislation, which even Democrat John Dingell (D-MI) says is “a tax and it’s a great big one.”



Democrat Charlie Melancon (D-LA) says, “I believe this bill would create an undue burden on families who are already paying too much in energy bills.”



Democrat Mike Ross (D-AR) says of Cap and Trade, “‘If you don’t like $4-a-gallon gasoline, you’re really not going to like your electric bill sometime between now and 2030.”



Go here, put in your zip-code, and call now.



Bill Ritter’s Car Tax Hits Home

by Ben | 7:00 am, June 26, 2009

A few days ago Mr. Bob reminded us that Bill Ritter’s car tax was a-comin’. Well, count me among the lucky ones who has a vehicle due to have the license renewed in July, and be hit by the tax first.
Yesterday the notice came in the mail from the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Usually, [...]

What we’re up against

by Rossputin | 1:25 am, June 26, 2009

While I have written several times recently about new polls showing measurable changes in sentiment against Democratic policies (more than against actual Democrats), several comments and online discussions I’ve had in recent days have served to remind me that we’re far from all being well with our Republic.

My most rabidly leftist commenter, over at the Denver Post “Gang of Four” blog, a guy who goes by the name of RyeCatcher (who can’t spell and proudly proclaims that he doesn’t have a cell phone, but who claims to have served in the military for which I have thanked him), offered this comment on Tuesday:

“Its going to be fun watching RGK self-destruct as the Congress eventually will be forced to raise taxes and end tax evasion privledges [sic] for the wealthy.”

What I find interesting about this is both how the guy takes pleasure in the thought of someone he disagrees with being attacked by the government as well as his obvious (and repeated) total lack of understanding of the implications for him when the economy tanks because of the left’s “soak the rich” policies. Actually, this guy has repeatedly made comments along the lines of how he’s looking forward to bad things (politically and financially) happening to me, betraying the liberal ignorance of how an economy really works.

The above statement by Ryecatcher was in a comment in response to a note I posted about the current health care “reform” debate. Another of his gems was in the same comment: “Isn’t the government allowed to compete. [sic]” Again, a typical and willful leftist ignorance of what government really is and really does.

And while this guy is extreme in his partisanship, I don’t think he’s alone (though I’m sure he doesn’t have as much company as he believes.) He certainly represents a substantial section of urban population (in this case Denver), in particular people of modest educational achievement. (I do not say that as an insult. If he served in the military coming out of high school, that’s a very high calling. And this nation is too obsessed with people going to college.)

Ryecatcher shows that ignorance can be impenetrable and that Obama’s cult of personality will hold up longer than one might expect in these economic conditions.

Next, over at FreedomWorks, there’s a commenter named Sickle who, while quite liberal, is (at least lately) far more civil than Ryecatcher and actually engages in a real discussion from time to time.

In response to a note about Obama’s economic fascism, which I defined as “the apparent continuation of private property as opposed to outright government ownership (thought obviously even that is an incorrect assumption in GM) but with government substantially dictating the terms under which those companies must operate, generally ‘in the service of the nation’ or at least in the service of the whims of the ruling elite,’ Sickle said he didn’t see any. I gave him examples of the government telling GM not to close certain facilities or dealerships as well as their forcing GM to make certain kinds of cars, but his response was that “pushing them in the green cars direction makes sound business sense” and “Where’s the fascism, Ross?”

Sickle represents the degree to which more intelligent liberals are willing to ignore clear evidence because it conflicts with their views that (1) doing something is better than doing nothing, and (2) it’s intentions, not results, which really matter.

Again, I believe Sickle represents many Democrats and while he’s more able (or at least more willing) to have a rational conversation than people like Ryecatcher, he consistently represents the liberal view that actions should be judged by their intentions rather than their outcomes. And of course, that is EXACTLY what Barack Obama wants people to think.

Also over at FreedomWorks, I got a comment from “ProudLiberal” who said “not every good or service should be provided by a free market system and health care is one that should not. I think most Americans will agree that what we seek as a people is a system in which consequences are the prime goal. Health care should be provided first to the people who need it most without the condition of paying for it.”

This statement is so perfect, I’m tempted not to comment on it, but being me I have to. First, the idea that some things should be provided in a free market and other things not is strange. Second, it begs the question of who gets to decide. Third, it implies that the consequences of socialist policies are superior to free market outcomes even though history shows that to be entirely false. And fourth, it shows the usual lack of understanding that creating a right for one person (that is a right to something that is not free) is creating a responsibility for someone else.

What’s probably most interesting about this comment is that the commenter is explicitly “proud” of holding these views and, as is typical of progressives, clearly believes he or his anointed leaders are smarter than the collective wisdom of free people making free choices. It is, as Hayek said, “the fatal conceit.”

So, the point of this somewhat rambling note? It’s that we lovers of political and economic liberty must never forget that the opposition, loyal or angry and bitter, cares little for liberty – indeed, they probably don’t even truly understand the word. They care little for the principles of the American founding. They are by turns jealous, closed-minded, brain-washed, or determined to be judged for wanting lovely things to happen even if their policy choices cause poverty and death.

It’s that we have an extremely difficult battle for hearts and minds our hands and, to be frank, I don’t think we can win it until the economy has collapsed around these people and they have no choice but to listen to capitalists again, just as Ayn Rand predicted 50 years ago.

And while part of me wants to say that we could make real headway in convincing the youngest third of the American population that freedom is indeed an end in itself if only we had more truly American politicians and activists trying to educate the citizenry, the truth is that much of the citizenry just doesn’t want to hear it. After all, they’ve been part of history, electing the first cool black president. Who cares if he’s dangerous in almost every way, whether to our economy, our national security, our health, or our basic American freedoms? No, the only way we win this is for people to learn that OUTCOMES matter more than intentions and the only way they’ll learn it is to suffer through some truly terrible outcomes.

Therefore, I take an even stronger stand than Rush Limbaugh when I say I want Obama to fail. I want him to fail so spectacularly that, at least for a while, people wonder if the nation is going to fail. Only then will people like Ryecatcher, Sickle, and ProudLiberal realize that the path to hell was paved with their good intentions.

SHARETHIS.addEntry( {
title : ‘What we're up against’,
url : ‘http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/what-we-re-up-against’},
{ button: true }
) ;

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

IBD: All you need to know about Waxman-Markey

by Rossputin | 1:04 am, June 26, 2009

Waxman-Markey, aka “cap and trade”, aka “cap and tax” – potentially the most destructive legislation of my lifetime – is scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives today, although Comrade Pelosi might pull the vote if she thinks it will fail.

A lot has been written about it, but this editorial by the Investors Business Daily is probably the best summary I’ve seen.

Please read “Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster”, IBD, 6/25/09
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330822830678035

SHARETHIS.addEntry( {
title : ‘IBD: All you need to know about Waxman-Markey’,
url : ‘http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/ibd-all-you-need-to-know-about-waxman-ma’},
{ button: true }
) ;

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

More Love for the Amendment 54 Puppies and Kitties

by T.L. James | 11:54 pm, June 25, 2009

Westword apparently can’t get enough of my Amendment 54 puppies and kitties ads.

It’s unfortunate, however, that the occasion for revisiting these gems is Judge Catherine Lemon’s issuing of a temporary injunction against the implementation of the donations portion of Amendment 54.  
Remember, Colorado: from TABOR to transparency, it doesn’t matter what you vote for… if Big Labor and its [...]

Wrong, Ed Perlmutter: Waxman-Markey Would Harm 7th District Jobs, Economy

by Ben | 6:03 pm, June 25, 2009

Earlier today Representative Ed Perlmutter responded to my letter urging him to vote against the Waxman-Markey massive energy “cap and tax” (no doubt with boilerplate language):
As you may know, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is important legislation to help build a new clean energy economy. This bill will create millions of [...]

keep looking »


  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!

  • Sponsors

    Health Care Reform


  • Advertise here!
    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

    • AWSOM Powered