Friday, July 25, 2014
Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them. If I decide I want to give money, I will. I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself. However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.
You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker? You asked for it, you're getting it.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party. How could I not? Ronald Reagan was president. My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him. My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government. The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?
Then came the 90s. I got a little older. I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said. And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips). Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.
My first Presidential election was in 2000. I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush. He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert. And things started out well. The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry. If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.
And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.
But George Bush was never Conservative. Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats. The Patriot Act passed at his insistence. The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution. No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.
For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused. I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed. For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge. For another, you should never trust government in the first place.
I've grown wiser since then. It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.
And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government. I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists. Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program. The Constitution is short, I'll wait.
Republicans don't want to shrink government. They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible. They want it under their control.
2- They stand for amnesty. Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat. We don't want it. A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.
And what do Republicans stand against?
1- They stand against small government. If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government. QED.
2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy. See above.
3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents. Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents. Some of those were... ill advised. But some were not. Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections. How did the RNC respond?
When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent. I suppose that's fair enough. But what did they do *after* the primary? Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity." When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing. That was bad enough.
But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel. In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height. When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you. We don't value you. We don't think we need you to win."
To which I say, "Fine. Then you won't have me."
I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas. I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it. I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.
But the RNC will never see another dime from me. And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote. If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.
No more. You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.
Friday, June 6, 2014
"When, in the course of Human Events..." thus begins one of the greatest declarations for Liberty in history. I believe that threshold has been crossed. I believe the differences between Progressives and Conservatives in America are irreconcilable. In this place over the next several posts, I will lay out why I believe the United States as it exists today cannot continue, and why Conservatives should start talking earnestly, passionately, and logically about a National Divorce.
This is not a subject approached lightly. This is not flippancy, or a tantrum over "not getting my way." This is a sober reflection on the state of our Nation, and on what I believe must follow if we are to live in peace with each other. This is not a call to revolution or rebellion. It is a call for discussion amongst ourselves, and with our political rivals.
I will lay out four areas I believe show that we have gone too far; that the Federal Government of the United States no longer protects those Liberties it was constituted to protect. Those areas are: The Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary, and Economics.
I hope you will give these arguments thoughtful consideration; I'm not trying to "throw bombs." I'm trying to save Liberty for my children.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor. I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.
Well, now I have more evidence. Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal. Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration). Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.
So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away. Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship. Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war. It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.
But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior. When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban. This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason. Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. That crime for which there is exactly one punishment. Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.
So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release. Absolutely. Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists. This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.” Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter? Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”
Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too. Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs. That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW. So it’s a POW-swap. Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.
Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief. He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off. As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal. So it makes some sense.
What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this. What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up? The President of the United States just arguably committed treason. He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency. If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?
It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT. They must start stone-walling him at every turn. No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT. No more pushes for Amnesty. No more “my friends across the aisle.” Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama. And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.
Which is it?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
This Story is by Becky Oliver at Fox 4 here in DFW. Go read it: seriously.
For those too impatient- a veteran noticed a lump under his arm, and tried to get care via the VA. Because of their bureaucratic run-around, his treatment was delayed by 4 months. That delay was in treatment of Melanoma- a very agressive cancer. It is very likely that, had he been seen initially and treated with current treatment options, he would not be a terminal patient today.
There's no way to know that, of course, but it's highly likely.
Now, first off- if you notice a lump or an odd mole or anything like that, and the answer you're given when you seek treatment is "you'll have to wait several months?" Yeah, seek treatment elsewhere.
That said- how has this evil infested the VA? And why should we believe that it won't infest ObamaCare? I am virtually certain that no one at the VA looked at this veteran's chart and decided to let him die of cancer. I'm certain it was all much more banal than that. Indeed, it is the very banality of the evil that makes it so terrifying. If someone had set out to deny this man, and his family for that matter, care, then there would be someone who could be made to answer for this. Someone could be called out and made to answer. Instead, it was simply "the process."
This comes as the VA is under scrutiny in Arizona, which is itself merely a symptom of a wider problem. Up and down the VA there are stories of delayed care, sub-standard care, and simple neglect. Such a culture can only exist if the man at the top allows it. In this case, the man at the top is not Secretary Eric Shinseki. Given the amount of time this has been going on, and the fact that Barack Obama specifically ran on "fixing" the VA, the "man at the top" is Barack Hussein Obama, that stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.
If the SCOAMT cared about our Veterans, he would already have demanded Secretary Shinseki's resignation. If he really cared about our Veterans, he would already be working to correct issues like this. Instead he tries to handle like a "fake scandal," and rallies the Democrats around him to decry the "faux outrage."
No, the SCOAMT does not care about our Veterans- they are of no use to him. And so it will be with your health care under ObamaCare. There will be delays and bureaucracy instead of consultations and treatment. When confronted with the consequences, responses like those featured in the linked story will be issued.
One other party is responsible for this- Republicans in Congress. It is they who have refused to act as a check on Barack Obama's worst tendencies. At every turn they choose to "wait for a better opportunity" or not to investigate at all. How many opportunities have the Republicans had to pull the SCOAMT up short? And every time they have refused because someone somewhere might be offended.
There is only one way to fix this culture of neglect and carelessness at the VA, and that is to remove the man at the top. Not the Secretary of the VA- his boss.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Is the memorial cooking hamburgers and hot-dogs? Is it flags and banners? (BTW- Kudos to Whataburger- every one I saw today had their flag at half-staff) It certainly seems fairly generic, doesn't it? I mean, there are at least three secular holidays we celebrate the same way- and in Texas we've got a lot more. So that can't be the memorial, can it?
And what are we remembering? The last Memorial Day? More seriously, are we remembering every individual death incurred by members of our military?
I feel like Charlie Brown asking the meaning of Christmas. There has to be more than hot-dogs and hamburgers, more than graves and flags. So what is it?
Maybe the answer lies in what it means (or at least used to mean) to be an American. Maybe the answer is not the individual deaths, but the purpose of those deaths. Maybe the answer is this: Today we remember Martyrs. Not martyrs for any Religion- but Martyrs for Freedom. Today we remember the lives they knowingly endangered and gave up so that we, today- and every day if we choose- *could* eat hamburgers and hot-dogs. Today we remember their families and the sacrifices they made.
Today we remember that freedom is easily lost or forfeited, and requires a terrible price to redeem. I thank God that I have not had to pay that price- not myself, or anyone I love. I thank God that there are those who have, and more who continue to stand ready to make that sacrifice.
God bless you, heroes, I, for one, am not worthy of your service.
Monday, May 12, 2014
My employer's Open Enrollment period just began. When I was hired in October last year, there were two plans- a "traditional" plan (the PPO that we've all come to know and love) and a "Select" (or something like that) plan- a High Deductible Health Plan. As I was hired after open enrollment, I was not given an option, and was placed in the HDHP. Given my family's medical needs this was sub-optimal, but we made it work looking forward to open enrollment when we could elect to spend a little more per paycheck and get a PPO plan with co-payments instead of the High Deductible plan.
Well, that got all blowed up.
Now, our CEO and CFO and all of those people went to great pains to tell us how the "Private Exchange" into which we've been entered is not a "Public Exchange" and therefore isn't ObamaCare. It just *happens* to have a "Gold," "Silver," and "Bronze" level and they all just *happen* to be High Deductible plans (though the Gold Plan doesn't qualify as one for Health Savings Account purposes). It also just *happens* that the least bad of the plans for my family would nearly double my current insurance premium.
I want it on the record that I do not blame my employer for this. Health care sucks right now, thanks to Obamacare. If I blame for anything it's for lying to their employees about the reasons for the sucky choices, and for hiding behind "MOAR CHOICE!" (Ooooh, we have 3 sucky plans instead of 1 good one and 1 bad one- oh, and more insurance companies.) C'mon guys, at least man up and admit "Hey, for those of you who want/need the PPO, this is really going to suck."
However, I wanted to highlight this because of two things. First, this is going to happen everywhere. Where employers don't just drop coverage entirely, they are all going to be forced to move to these kinds of plans because the insurance carriers are going to have to raise rates for everything to cover their increased costs under Obamacare. I would feel worse for the insurance companies, but many of them supported Obamacare. Now my family and I are trapped in the middle.
Second is this: this was an entirely predictable occurrence. Many of us on the right said this would happen, and we were told that we were being "scare mongers" and "conspiracy theorists." The SCOAMT, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid forced this on the American People, and it's going to kill us.
"Yeah, that's old news," you say, and you're right. That is old news. So is this, but it bears highlighting as well- Republicans are being way too weak-kneed about pushing for full repeal. There is no "fix" here. It must be utterly and completely destroyed. As I've pointed out before, those "popular" provisions of the law are some of the worst. Anything less than full repeal is unacceptable, because anything less than full repeal will *still* kill the best health care system in the world.