April 12, 2010

Paul Ryan Refutes “Conservative Progressive” Label

Filed under: Glenn Beck,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 6:15 PM

Paul Ryan told Glenn Beck and Hot Air: I’m not a conservative progressive.



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

April 1, 2010

Democrat Phil Hare: ‘I Don’t Care About the Constitution’

Filed under: Constitution,Politics,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 10:20 PM

Democrat Representative Phil Hare expressed what progressive Democrats believe concerning the Constitution, they just don’t care what it says!



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

March 28, 2010

Howard Dean: “Of Course Health Care Law Is Redistribution of Wealth”

Filed under: Healthcare,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 10:15 PM

Howard Dean is honest, you got to give him that. It is so is so blatantly obvious that progressives want to re-make America into a socialist nation.

“It’s like a machine. You always got to tune it right.”

Via Breitbart.tv



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

March 25, 2010

Jim Wallis Caught Lying About ‘Ambush’ Interview on ‘The B-Cast’

Filed under: Politics,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 10:45 PM

If it’s out of the mouths of progressives, it’s either a lie or an attack on America. People like Obama Advisor Jim Wallis are worthless and their words are like a grain of salt. Here is caught lying about an ambush interview on “The B-Cast.”

Via Breitbart.tv



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

February 1, 2010

Glenn Beck Show — Progressivism

Filed under: Glenn Beck,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 1:21 PM

Glenn Beck Show January 29, 2010, focused on Progressivism. Glenn’s guest included RJ Pestritto,Larry Schweikart and Burton Folsom Jr. Watch the entire program.





January 31, 2010

The Last Barrier For Progressivism

Filed under: Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 7:07 PM

FireAndreaMitchell has written an excellent article that explains the ultimate goal of progressivism and the last remaining barrier which prevents them from reaching their statist goal.

To understand the threat of Progressivism, you must first understand the obstacle that Progressives detest. It is the Constitution. Progressives cannot accomplish their goal of a centralized government without first destroying the Constitution. They can’t get to equalization (and ultimately control) of each person because the Constitution prevents them from doing so.
There’s no better way to illustrate this than through the Constitution itself. So let’s start with the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th Amendment tells the Federal Government that the rights enumerated to them does not mean that the people don’t have other rights that are not specifically addressed in the Constitution. It asserts that the Federal Government cannot violate those other rights retained by the people as well. That includes legal, natural, and inalienable rights of each individual. A perfect example is the right to privacy.

The 9th Amendment limits the scope and authority of the Federal government. It instructs us as to the construction of the Constitution. The Progressives must eliminate this in order to achieve their ultimate goal of centralized government to control the individual and violate the enumerated and unenumerated rights of the individual.

Next let’s move on to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Instructions by the people to the Federal Government, for the people, don’t get much clearer than this. Each power that is granted to the Federal Government is enumerated in the Constitution. If you don’t see a power delegated to the Federal government there and it is not prohibited by it to the States, then those powers and rights are reserved EXCLUSIVELY to the States or the people.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are the most hated amendments of the Progressives. The 9th and 10th Amendments cover and clarify the 1st 7 articles and the first 8 Amendments of the Constitution. Why do the Progressives hate the 9th & 1oth Amendments so? Because, when the Constitution is followed properly, it eliminates their goal of a centralized government which exerts control into every aspect of an individual’s life. It stops their ability to violate the rights, both legal and natural of an individual.

One merely has to look at the words of Progressives:

Barack Obama:

“Just five days until we fundamentally transform America”

“We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity”

I don’t know about you but fundamentally transforming and laying a new foundation means you have to destroy the original foundation – The Constitution.

But let’s not just use the President as an example. Progressivism is pervasive through out Congress. In fact, the Progressive Caucus counts 83 declared members. Out of the 20 standing committees in the House of Representatives, 11 are chaired by Progressives.

There’s not a better example from a Progressive about exactly what Progressives are going to do to the Constitution than the most recent one from Nancy Pelosi on trying to pass their “health care reform”:

We’ll go through the gate, the gate’s closed. We’ll go over the fence, the fence is too high. We’ll pole vault in if that doesn’t work we’ll parachute in, but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people

That gate and fence that Pelosi and others talk about is THE Thorn of Progressives. That Thorn is the U.S. Constitution



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

January 30, 2010

California Set To Run Out Of Cash In April, So Senate Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill

Filed under: Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 1:24 PM

Things aren’t looking so rosy for California as it is on pace to run out of money before April 2010. Progressives are ruining the world’s 7th largest economy and in the process pass a single-payer health care bill.

State Controller John Chiang issued a stern warning Friday about California’s cash reserves, telling legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger they must act on nearly $9 billion in budget cuts the governor is seeking by March — or the state will run out of cash to pay its bills.

Without making those cuts — which Chiang says will pump $1.3 billion into the state’s checking account — California would be broke by April 1, no fooling.

The state wouldn’t climb back to what’s considered a safe level of cash on hand, $2.5 billion, until later that month, when tax revenues are expected to begin flowing into Sacramento.

“While our current cash condition is marginally better than it was one year ago,” Chiang wrote to leaders, “it is still precarious.”

Even with the budget cuts, the state’s cash reserve would still be far below that cushion in March and April.

Read rest here >>>

As many of you know entitlement programs are killing the state of California, yet on the hills of California’s financial woes, the California Senate approved single-payer health care bill.

The move in California comes after Massachusetts voters changed the calculus in Congress by electing a Republican to the Senate who opposes the pending plan.

Democrats are the majority in both houses of the California Legislature. The 40-member state Senate passed the single-payer plan on a 22-14 vote, sending it to the Assembly. One Democrat voted against the measure.

Schwarzenegger promised to veto the proposal, as he has two similar plans that previously reached his desk. Spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola cited the state’s massive budget cuts and looming $20 billion deficit in arguing the state cannot afford to shift to a single-payer health care system.

“Any elected official who thinks it’s a good idea to strap the state with tens of billions of dollars from a government-run health care system is clearly not in touch with what voters need and deserve,” Arrezola said.

Read rest here >>>

This just doesn’t make sense. California is broke and yet the progressive idiots in the Senate pass a single-payer health care bill. Wonder how the good people of California are enjoying progressivism?



Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility

Conservative Books and Conservative Book Club

January 3, 2010

Political Progressive Professor Pissed Off At Obama

Filed under: Politics,Progressivism — Cato Uticensis @ 1:03 PM

I was browsing the Internet today and found this great article that is a must read. When the progressives are getting angst with Obama, you know he’s got problems.

The political professor is David Michael Green and the article is Now I’m Really Getting Pissed Off

Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf, and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately? No, as a matter of fact – I’m not talking about Tiger Woods.

You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama. But the little prick is making it very hard.

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Did this clown really say on national television that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street”?

Really, Barack? So, like, my question is:

Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?

Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government?

Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing?

Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

Are you freakin’ kidding me? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter.

But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

Are you going to tell us that “I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex”? But what – they’re just so darned pushy?

“…I did not run for office to continue George Bush’s valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It’s just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky.”

“…I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It’s just that they asked so nicely.”

“…I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it.”

“…I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn’t want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops.”

Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting withWall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

And he doesn’t even seem to realize it.

Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself “a good solid B+” for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed?

Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?

I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less than a year’s time, falling now below fifty percent. Hisparty , once dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month, Obama’s inverted coattails (don’t even ask where those go) got two Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that in Kentucky, “a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington”.

Wow. Obama is now wrecking state senate races! What’s next? Will local Republican candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers?

“For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart in a recent AP article. “What we don’t know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?”

Au contraire, Peter. Au contraire. I think anyone more sentient than a newborn amoeba can answer that question. The first thing to note is that the economy is not coming back anytime soon, if it comes back at all. Unless, of course, you’re a fat cat Wall Street banker. Then you’re just fine, because the Bush-Obama administration took care of you quite nicely, thanks very much. The rest of us poor slobs out here in real-world land, on the other hand, got a “jobs summit”.

I can’t even begin to describe how insulting Obama conducting a “jobs summit” is to me, or what an unbelievably ham-fisted piece of public relations that was for the White House , which is increasingly showing itself not just to be sickeningly regressive, but also fully inept. I think I speak for a whole lot of Americans when I say that, one year into his stewardship over a destroyed economy that was actually atomizing for at least six months before inauguration day, I don’t want my president sitting around a table, running a dog-and-pony show, pretending to kick around ideas on how to generate jobs. I wanted him to have those ideas, himself, before he was inaugurated. I wanted those to be real ideas, that produce real jobs for real Americans who are really hurting. I wanted that to be, and still be, the be-all and end-all of his presidency, not some distant fourth-place priority, behind healthcare and the White House dog selection process. And, especially not some fourth-place priority behind jive healthcare reform.

Which brings us to the second answer to Mr. Hart’s question. If Democrats think they’ll be screwed next November because of unemployment, wait till Congress passes this healthcare monstrosity. Or doesn’t. At this point, either way they’re gonna get slammed for it, and rightly so.

If they don’t pass anything, they will be seen as unable to govern. This perception will be quite true because they will have failed to pass a major piece of legislation, despite having 60-40 majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the presidency. It doesn’t get much better than that for a governingparty in the American system. But it will be true in an even more profound sense, because the whole priority structure of the Democratic agenda is wrong. Sure, people want healthcare reform right now (especially if it were to miraculously also have the virtue of being authentic healthcare reform), but what they really want, overwhelmingly, is jobs. This choice of priorities is the equivalent of, say, invading Iraq when you’ve been attacked by people in Afghanistan. Surely no president would be that stupid, right? Surely any politicalparty would realize the costs of having priorities so divorced from those of the voters, right?

On the other hand, the Democrats and their hapless president are probably in worse shape if they actually pass this legislation. Especially now that it’s been stripped of nearly every real progressive reform imaginable, it has become an incredibly stupid bill, from the political perspective. It will force people who can’t afford it to spend a giant amount of money on lousy insurance, without any real choice to hold down costs, and it will fund this by hacking away at the Medicare budget. No wonder an insurance industry lobbyist broadcast an email last week declaring: “We WIN. Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

But here’s a little riddle that any sixth-grader can easily figure out, although it seems to have eluded the brain trust at the White House: If insurance companies are winning big-time, then who is doing the losing? Something tells me that if Democrats are dumb enough to pass their own legislation, voters will provide them the answer to that puzzle in November of 2010, and then again two years later. What could be stupider than saddling thirty-five million Americans with a new monthly bill that will probably represent the second or third biggest item in their budget, in exchange for crappy private sector health insurance that is unlikely to pay out when needed, and wastes a third of the dollars paid in premiums on bureaucracy and profits anyhow? Slapping big fines on them if they don’t pony up for the insurance, perhaps? Yep, that’s in there too.

This bill alone could mobilize legions of people to go to the polls and vote for whichever party didn’t do it, and I’m pretty sure the GOP won’t be shy about reminding Americans who that is. I mean, if Democrats were searching for legislation less likely to win them votes, why didn’t they just bring back slavery or the debtor’s prison? Why not come out for pedophilia? It would have been so much more efficient. At least they wouldn’t have spent the last year looking like idiotic bunglers who, in addition to sponsoring really unpopular ideas, also inadvertently left their testicles at the coat check and have spent the last thirty years trying to find their way back to the gala.

Ah, but wait! If you order now, there’s more!

As I understand it, the bill doesn’t even actually force insurance companies to cover people, at least in the sense that they can charge prohibitive amounts to those with whatever they define as pre-existing conditions. You know, like the young woman who had a policy but died when she was denied cancer treatment because she had a bad case of acne as a teenager.

This will be a total train wreck for the Democratic Party. Already, the public opposes the plan by a ratio of 47 to 32 percent. And they haven’t even been handed the bill for it yet. And they haven’t even had their premiums skyrocket yet. And they haven’t even seen insurance corporation executives buy small countries for use as second homes with the increased compensation they will be floating in. And they haven’t even found out what this does to their Medicare yet. And they haven’t even seen the impact on the national debt yet. And they haven’t even realized that the ‘good’ parts of the bill don’t go into effect until FOUR YEARS from now.

You know, elite Republicans may be sociopaths, and they may be lower on the moral totem pole than your basic cannibal, but they’re not stupid. I bet they’re salivating at the idea that this thing passes. I bet they’d even have Olympia Snowe vote for it if necessary, just to put it over the top. They must be laughing their asses off at this gift. All they have to do is oppose it right down the line, then say “Told ya so!” at the next election, squashing the pathetic Demognats, one after the next. Hey, even if worse comes to worse and the thing eventually becomes popular, they can always wait a decade or two and become champions of the new publically beloved healthcare system – just like they did for Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, etc.

This is President Nothingburger’s great gift to America, along with doing nothing about jobs, doing nothing about the Middle East, nothing about civil liberties, nothing about civil rights, and now doing nothing at Copenhagen. Regarding the latter, the world is literally on fire, and he jets in, gives a speech haranguing the delegates that “Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action”, then splits even before the vote in order to beat the snowstorm headed to the east coast that might delay him getting home to his comfy bed. I’m not kidding. You can’t make this s–t up, man.

This guy is killing me, though at the same time I still can’t quite figure him out.

Here’s what I get: This president is a corporate hack. Like Bush or Clinton, he has constituents, alright – but you and I are not on that particular list.

Here’s what I don’t get: He is radically tanking, at a moment when people no longer have patience for those kind of politics anymore.

Here’s what I get: This president has his fingers in many pies, as he needs to, ranging from global warming to economic implosion to two wars abroad to massive federal debt.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why does he bother to do these things in a way that pleases no one, and only dramatically undercuts his own political standing? Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus making everyone his enemy?

Is he just massively deluded? I wouldn’t have thought so, but watching the guy give himself a very good grade for 2009 – straight face and all – during the same year he’s lost twenty points off his job approval rating, and at a moment when even blacks and gays are deserting him, you know, you have to wonder.

Is he happy just to be a one-term president – just to say he’s been there and done that, and then sell some more books – even if he is reviled as one of the worst in history? Maybe. But what about the rest of us?

The rest of us, indeed. It’s been quite some time since anyone in the White House ever cared about that sorry pack of rabble.

Obama looked like he could’ve been something different. He ain’t.

So this is it, folks.

Change you can believe in?

More like bullshit you can take a bath in, if you ask me.

Ouch! So much for progressivism.

H/T Notoriously Conservative



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