Scary Thoughts for Halloween

Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.

With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.

If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.

McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.

On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.

I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.

That's about all my scary thoughts for now.

This wig hurts.

A Little Frightening...

As you know, the President vetoed the bill in which Congress legislated Congress to be the President. Bush commented that this seemed a little unconstitutional. Harry Reidiculous replied, basically,

to hell with the Constitution. We are the Congress, dammit, and it is our job to be president if we want to.

I am paraphrasing, of course, because mr. reid is a Mor(m)on who would say "heck" and "darndiddlydangit" instead. For you skeptics out there, who just have to have "the facts", here is what he actually said, after "bristling" at the claim:

"We are not going to be submitting our legislation to somebody at one of the law schools to look for its constitutionality. We have an obligation, under the terms of the Constitution, to legislate," he said. "That's our job."

I think I summed it up pretty well.

So do these...



These folks don't seem to think we have a constitution.





See that feller over yonder? He assures me that we still have a constitution.







Whaddyall think?








I am saddened this day to find that we do, in fact, have a constitution.

Two Paths

Two paths diverged in a wood...

And Harry "majority leader" Reed took whichever one the President didn't (or won't, or might not). Once again, with no thought or consideration for reality, mr. reed jumped all over the cut'n'run bandwagon, which left the stage before the race was even begun. President Bush has not announced his strategy for Iraq yet, but Harry "the Moron" Reed, allowing his vile hatred and contempt for the duly elected leader of the free world to prevail over common sense or reason, is already lambasting it. I got the opportunity to listen to Lieberman and the eternal presidential candidate, McCain, speak to the need for more troops. There was actually a little common sense in their comments, especially as it relates to the need for more troops.

I will admit that I am one who felt like we should have left as soon as Saddam was gone, told the Iraqis to throw something together, with the threat that we'll be back if what they come up with is in any way a threat to our national security. But, we didn't. We attempted a more respectable approach. If you tear someone's house down, it is generally accepted practice to give them another one. So, we pursued that approach. How successfully we have done that is anyone's guess, since the only people who have any actual first hand knowledge of the situation are only seeing what will promote their point of view.

McCain, however, pointed out that the reason we cannot simply pull out now is that to do so would be perceived as a defeat by our men and women in uniform. He further pointed out that it is much more difficult to rebuild and manage a defeated military than a victorious one (re: post Vietnam). He feels that it is still possible to be victorious, but to do so would require more uniformed heroes on the ground. Although such a build up would be more expensive, the long term effects would far outweigh the costs. Additionally, once committed, commanders should not have to make decisions based on what's available, but on what is the best way to succeed. It is therefore imperative, per McCain, that we provide them with whatever resources they feel will bring success, without fear of the bill. I found this to be an interesting, and somewhat persuasive approach.

mr. reed, however, offered no explanation for his desire to cut'n'run except that our military men and women deserve to come home. Come home to what, mr. reed? To people like you giving them a sympathetic arm around the shoulders, saying, 'oh, it's ok that you lost. It isn't your fault, it's your commander in chief's fault.' Or to your co-leftists who will only give them the cold shoulder, as they can't stand that these men and women dutifully followed the orders of their leaders, and had the gaul to follow thru with their military sworn oaths and commitments? Yeah, that's a sure fire way to maintain morale in the military. It's also a wonderful strategy for guaranteeing our security here at home. Oh, and what a wonderful way to win the trust of the rest of world. ("Oh, there now, see, we told you those stupid Americans couldn't handle it.")

Once again, mr. reed, you have clearly showed your love of power and politics above honor, duty, commitment, loyalty, respect, and reality. This is further evidence that you have simply duped the electorate into voting on emotion rather than logic and common sense.