December 29, 2009

Obama Says Terror Suspect ‘Isolated Extremist,’ While Al Qaeda Claims Credit

Filed under: Barack Obama,Terrorism — Cato Uticensis @ 7:33 PM

The buffoonery of President Obama became evident at his press conference. After 3 days of complete silence, Obama comes out of paradise and seeks to reassure the American people that his administration is doing all it can to prevent an attack and to learn lessons from the attempted downing of the airliner.

Now listen very closely to Emperor Dumbo:

Fox NationKarl Rove points out that President Obama called the Flight 253 bomb plotter an “isolated extremist” but Al Qaeda has already claimed credit for the terrorist bombing attempt. According to Rove, Obama is trying to paint terror suspect as a lone wolf, but in fact he’s part of larger terror network.

Excuse me, how can President Obama say or imply that Captain Underpants is an “isolated extremist” when it is clearly evident Al Qaeda had already claimed responsibility! I’ll tell you the reason why; complete incompetence!

Explain to me what’s so “isolated” about a member of Al Qaeda which claims tens of thousand of members and even more supporters? According to several news agencies, the events on Christmas day were planned by Al Qaeda, and not the result of an isolated terrorist acting on his own.

This President needs to get out of his Pre-9/11 Mindset and realize Al Qaeda is at war with the United States of America.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 27, 2009

Davy Crockett and the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the dangers of ignoring its restraints

Filed under: Constitution,History — Cato Uticensis @ 12:19 PM

History’s greats from time to time offer a peek of their greatness in events other than those that awarded them immortality.

Tennessee militia colonel David Crockett, conceivably best known for his part in the 1836 defense of the Alamo, also served three terms in the United States Congress between 1827 and 1835. Nationally known during his generation as a political representative of the frontier, Crockett it appears came by that standing honestly, inasmuch as he was not above listening to his constituents. The following selection is from an 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis, “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,” reveals how his own rural electorate educated him on the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the dangers of ignoring its restraints.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches
in support of the bill. He commenced: “Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an
act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of
1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor.

She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do
not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill,
but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday.

Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: “Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard: “Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we
got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of
the bill.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was
about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not
take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and –’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager [a knock down blow -ed.] …. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it.

In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest …. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’

“Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours
should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff,
which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much
right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given
$20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the
Constitution.’”

“I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying: “‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I
consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that
way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them, Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted.

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of
him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the word by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the
most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant
a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Via Crockett.txt



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 26, 2009

Obama Cites Jesus to Preach Socialist Theology to Children

Filed under: Barack Obama,Religion — Cato Uticensis @ 3:46 PM

The Obama family can’t find the time to attend church this year, but President Obama certainly found time to use the Lord Jesus Christ as a symbol to be used for socialism.

Speaking Monday afternoon to a group of children from the Washington, D.C., Boys and Girls Club, the president delivered a mini sermon on “why we celebrate Christmas.” He asked the children if they knew. One piped up and said “The birth of baby Jesus.”

One can imagine the reaction of the media and other elites had a Republican president asked such a question. That Republican would have been accused of violating church-state separation and discriminating against those who celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or nothing. Because the president’s Christmas lesson perfectly fit his social goals, there has been no outcry.

The president spoke of what Jesus “symbolizes for people all around the world,” which he said, “is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect.”

And then, in the best tradition of a community organizer, the president said Jesus is about “doing something for other people.” Even the “three wise men” were invoked to support the president’s idea of wealth redistribution: “…these guys … have all this money, they’ve got all this wealth and power, and they took a long trip to a manger just to see a little baby.”

And what conclusion should be drawn from that journey? The president told the children, “…it just shows you that because you’re powerful or you’re wealthy, that’s not what’s important. What’s important is … the kind of spirit you have.”

To the president, this means the spirit of government taking from the productive and giving to the nonproductive. To him, Jesus is a socialist, or perhaps an early Robin Hood. Any first-year seminarian (if the seminary is a good one) could destroy this flawed exegesis.

Let me correct a few things for the President:

  • First the Lord Jesus Christ is not a symbol, He is a man-THE GOD MAN.

    God Who was manifested in the flesh – 1 Timothy 3:16a

  • Jesus is not a symbol of socialism, but the source of salvation.

    Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12

  • Jesus did not come preaching redistributive change, but He came preaching redemption.

    the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.. Titus 2:13-14

Mr. President, man’s greatest need is not social justice, but rather salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 24, 2009

Health Care Bill Marked By Arrogance,Corruption,Stupidity

Filed under: Corruption,Healthcare — Cato Uticensis @ 9:43 AM

As of this post the Senate passed it’s version of health care 60-39. Republicans just didn’t have the votes to stop the Senate’s Obama Care. While they didn’t have the votes, they certainly had the better argument. Senator Tom Coburn has eloquently explained why he voted against the Senate Democrats bill:

This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

The Democrats are one step closer to their life-long dream: SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, the crown jewel of socialism. And there seems to be nothing that we the American people can do to stop. With two-thirds of Americans opposed to this deliberate take over of the worlds greatest health care system, Democrats are hell bent to enact passage of a final bill in February 2010.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 21, 2009

Liberalism and the Devastation of Detroit

Filed under: Liberalism,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 8:39 PM

Detroit, after fifty unbroken years of liberal Democrat rule has sunken so low, that it has become a city devoid of hope. The problem isn’t that they haven’t poured enough money into the schools or the city, it’s because liberalism and liberal politicians have run this city into the ground with their failed corrupt polices.

You see, liberalism is an ideology of no anticipation, no innovation, no motivation. Liberalism doesn’t believe in the power of the individual, nor do liberals believe in personal responsibility. As a result of fifty years of liberal rule, a city brought down to its knees by unions and progressivism, it stands as the poster child of liberalism.

In the video by Steven Crowder you will witness the ravages of liberalism on a once great vibrant city.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 14, 2009

Obama Exposed! Obama Proposed Single-Payer System by Expanding Medicare in 2007

Filed under: Healthcare — Cato Uticensis @ 11:47 AM

Here we thought “Dingy” Harry Reid came up with expanding Medicare coverage “buy-in” for people from ages 55 to 64 all by himself. Well not so; Barak Obama proposed using the Medicare buying as a trojan horse to a single-payer system. Don’t say you haven’t been warned…

H/T Weazel Zippers



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 9, 2009

Feinstein: It’s ‘Morally Correct’ to Force Taxpayers to Pay for Abortion

Filed under: Abortion — Cato Uticensis @ 8:44 PM

This shouldn’t come as a shocker to anyone. Liberal Democrats believe it’s perfectly okay to tax the American people anytime for any reason – especially if it’s abortion.

CNSNews – As the Senate was debating the Nelson amendment Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: “Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.”

CNSNews.com asked: “So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein responded: “Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.”

Feinstein joined the majority of Democrats Tuesday in voting against the Nelson amendment, which was rejected on a 54-45 vote.

Don’t let Senator Ficklestein fool you: abortion is a big business and she’s not wanting to allow any legislation which would prohibit that business. Two things need to be done:

  1. Revoke Roe V. Wade and once again let the slaughter of innocent lives be called what it is: MURDER! Anyone with any sense of the dignity of human life should be against abortion.
  2. Repeal the National Income Tax. Would cripple and weaken the monstrosity of a government we have. Get them out of our pocketbook and out of our lives!


Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 6, 2009

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Filed under: Climate Change — Cato Uticensis @ 8:49 PM

This is pretty amazing. After Climategate, which the UN’s own climate chief now concedes is a public relations nightmare, and with the latest polls revealing growing doubts about global warming — and not just U.S. polls, what’s more — you’d think the AGW crowd would go the extra mile at its big photo op to make obvious the urgency of the crisis. Instead, we have this. Either they still don’t comprehend they have an image problem or they don’t care, opting to pay for their sins with extravagances from the corrupt carbon-offsets trade instead of imitating the average joe and doing without luxury transportation for two weeks. For a group of politicians, they sure are stupid about optics.

TelegraphCopenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against ObamaCare

Filed under: Healthcare,Ronald Reagan — Cato Uticensis @ 7:33 PM

No, I haven’t performed a miracle and resurrected Ronald Reagan to provide his take on the current health care debate. I didn’t have to, because the ideas underlying the current proposals, whether it is Obama Care, Pelosi Care or the Reid health care legislation, have been around for decades. This Reagan speech, from 1961, comes from the early days of the debate over Medicare and Medicaid. Well, here we are again. And, Reagan’s words are still ring true.

Until a national political figure steps forward to challenge the underlying flaws behind the Obama Administration’s policies, I’ll continue to look to our past for inspiration. Until someone will step forward to make the case for freedom, we can draw strength from past political giants who did.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

December 3, 2009

Job Summit: Obama wants new ideas for creating jobs

Filed under: Economy — Cato Uticensis @ 10:59 PM

President Obama held his job summit meeting today and honestly the only thing worth noting: he doesn’t have a clue what it takes to create jobs.

Obama had challenged his audience to help him come up with innovative ideas for putting millions of Americans back to work, saying he wants the “biggest bang for the buck.” Fox News

Here is a President who has never held a private sector position of any significance, never ran a private sector business, never started a small business. His only experience is being a community organizer! He totally believes government is the solution to all our problems, including creating jobs!

Well here are a few things the President should consider if he wants to stimulate job growth:

  • FREEZE ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Government spending reduces productivity as resources are withdrawn from the private sector and placed in the unproductive public sector. Seriously the out of control spending has to stop, he and the progressive Democrats are bankrupting our country. Government Spending and Economic Growth
  • REDUCE THE TAX RATE ON ALL BUSINESSES.

    It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes. The 41.6% maximum rate is scheduled to rise to 46.2% in 2010 when President Obama’s promised tax increases are implemented. American Thinker

    Mr. President, you want to stimulate job growth, then reduce the tax rates on businesses.

  • Renew the U.S. Commitment to Free Trade. Openess to free trade and investment flows is a key factor in stimulating the long-term economic growth that is essential to stimulating job growth and poverty reduction.
  • Stop Bailing out Businesses. No business is to big to fail. It is not your responsibility to pick winners and losers. When a business fails because of corruption and mismanagement, another business will rise because of innovation, technology based on sound business principles.

These are a few sound ideas that would help stimulate the economy and would definitely go along way toward reducing unemployment.

  • FREEZE ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Government spending reduces productivity as resources are withdrawn from the private sector and placed in the unproductive public sector. Seriously the out of control spending has to stop, he and the progressive Democrats are bankrupting our country. Government Spending and Economic Growth
  • REDUCE THE TAX RATE ON ALL BUSINESSES.

    It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes. The 41.6% maximum rate is scheduled to rise to 46.2% in 2010 when President Obama’s promised tax increases are implemented. American Thinker

    Mr. President, you want to stimulate job growth, then reduce the tax rates on businesses.

  • Renew the U.S. Commitment to Free Trade. Openess to free trade and investment flows is a key factor in stimulating the long-term economic growth that is essential to stimulating job growth and poverty reduction.
  • Stop Bailing out Businesses. No business is to big to fail. It is not your responsibility to pick winners and losers. When a business fails because of corruption and mismanagement, another business will rise because of innovation, technology based on sound business principles.

These are a few sound ideas that would help stimulate the economy and would definitely go along way toward reducing unemployment.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club