Coming for the Internet

The newest governmental attack against its citizens (on the behalf of its buddies at Hollywood) is aimed at the internet. Surprise, surprise.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its fellow, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are two bills currently being debated in congress and halls of internet wisdom. Their stated purpose is to curb online infringement upon intellectual property. Pending these bills, sites like Megaupload have been shut down.

Because, obviously, online piracy is so much more important than a balanced budget and dealing with an escalating sense of dissatisfaction with our foreign policy. Definitely more important.

There is a lot of fear that these bills would potentially shut down sites like Youtube, Wikipedia, and Tumblr, along with lesser-known sites like Fanfiction.net. In effect, the bill would take out legitimate sites just so Hollywood can make a bit more dough, and leave a bunch of people out in the cold as they find their online lives empty. (Doesn't that sound pathetic?)

On Wednesday, Wikipedia led a blackout protest that shut their sites and several others down for the day--I know my Tumblr blog was blacked out for the day--and a massive caller campaign began, people sending letters and calling their representatives and senators. (It's satisfying to note that the Congressional support for the bill has since dropped. Apparently they're realizing that if they pass it, the next civil war will be led by teenagers who have never seen the light of day.)

Just one more way the government wants to dictate to us. Silly people--thinking they can act like China and get away with it.

Protests, Palin, and Polls

Protests...

I'm sure all of us have had the Occupy Wall Street movement drummed into our heads over the past few weeks. Not that I mind the news media giving popular movements coverage. That's a good thing. There seems to be a wide range of people who are participating in the protests, from anarchists to democrats who just think government should give them more money. The people I especially don't understand--and the ones who seem to be most vocal on the movement's website--are the ones who are upset about their student loans and how evil Wall Street is because those evil corporatists don't pay taxes.

To the first, I would simply say that your choices are yours to make and yours to live with. You decided to go to college, with the idea that it would help you get a job. It obviously didn't, and now you're saddled with mountains of college debt that you have no way of paying off. Welcome to reality, where government doesn't pay for your shoddy decisions.

The second has a bit more justification, because the men who work on Wall Street are sometimes the ones who try to get out of every tax they can in quest of profits. I see this more as a commentary on the stifling nature of our tax code, and how easy it is to buy off the IRS, more than anything else. Should our politics and our money be separate? Sure. Will it happen anytime in the next six thousand years? Probably not. Six thousand years of past human civilization couldn't figure out how to wrest the two apart, and I have no delusions that our highly advanced technology will figure out a way for us to do it.

Of course, being the borderline anarchist that I am, I think our tax code is broken, period, and needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten, preferably in a way that will take up no more then ten printed pages and will be easy for the regular person to read. Hey, I'm allowed to be lazy with my citizenship. But once again, that's not going to happen anytime soon, because the IRS is far too lucrative an agency to be so curbed.

I identify far more with the protesters who are there for causes like ending the wars, or protesting the fact that our government is basically owned by the Chinese one because we owe so much money to them. Or even the people who are protesting the fact that corporate sponsors make up so much of the money given to our politicians (I'm still wondering why Rick Perry needs a whopping $17 million to prosecute his campaign...especially when Ron Paul is doing far better, and has only raised $12.5 million since he entered the race. I'm also wondering why people are still giving that shill money. But I digress). But, then again, as I said above, there's no way we're going to separate the two.

Palin...

Sarah Palin announced yesterday that she wouldn't be making a bid for the job of Spender in Chief. Democrats are disappointed, because their easy victory won't be quite as easy as they'd hoped, Palinites are mad/sad/in the depths of despair, and the rest of us are just happy we won't actually have to put up with her for the next thirteen months unless we are masochistic enough as to turn on Fox News.

I'm really not all that surprised by the move. She enjoys her role as media darling far too much to give it up for actual campaigning, and she knows she has more power as a pundit than she would as a prospective candidate for the highest office in the land. Mostly because she'd never get elected, and I do hope she knows it.

Polls.

With Barack Obama's approval rating down near 42% and his Rasmussen approval index at -24--again--I think it's safe to say that people don't really like him much. And it's not just our Democrat president, but also our Republican Congress that is drawing the ire of voters. According to a recent poll, only 14% approve of Congress' handling of recent business.

Not that Congress really seems to care. To individual congressmen, all that matters is that their individual popularity remains stable. And judging from my experience, that hasn't changed much. People in my district may not be fans of Congress, but they love Mac Thornberry, our valiant Republican knight who votes for bailouts and doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution, judging by his rhetoric. So individual congressmen get reelected, and Congress doesn't change, since people apparently don't realize that if you don't like what they're doing, it might be time to put new blood in there.

After all, it can't be our elected representatives who are statist curs. It's other people's representatives who do such terrible things.

Between Them Both

Pending a post on the Iowa GOP debate and the ensuing drama over the Ames poll, I got into a debate. Sort of. It's not a very strident debate, more like a discussion about the GOP's presidential field and the economics surrounding it. It's with Democrats, a portion of the population I don't get to talk to much. (I live in the Bible belt, and that's obviously synonymous with "Republican Country." Sometimes I wish I could move to California, but I'm sure I'd hate it there just as much, except for the weather around LA which is lovely. New Hampshire, here I come!)

Anyway. Democrats apparently frustrate me just as much as Republicans, mostly because of the inherent contradictions I see in their stances.

Republicans want government to stay out of their pocket and businesses, but it's just fine if the government comes into their bedrooms and tells them what to do.

Democrats want government to stay out of their bedrooms, but if it feels it needs to interfere in money and business matters to keep us "safe," that's just fine.

And it seems to me that, between the two, we're pretty much doomed. The only way those two can compromise is to mandate both sectors. All in the name of keeping us safe and/or righteous, of course. Hush, little citizen. Big government knows best.

O, the Things that I've Missed

And I don't really mind. A quick update - my summer activities are over, which of course means I'll have to start school soon. Sometimes being homeschooled is nice, though. I get to decide when to do my schoolwork. Haha. China was awesome, and I wish I was still there, except for the annoying fact that I couldn't get Facebook there. I love Facebook. But you don't really care about any of that, so I'll get into the interesting here's-what-I-think-about-all-the-junk-that's-still-going-on portion of this post.

Apparently the economy is fixing to crash. Again. In fact, our ole' friends Fannie and Freddie are even in the news again, as credit ratings on those institutions plummet. As if they weren't already in a 5-mile hole it had drilled in the crater made by the last market tank. The cause of the whole commotion seems to be centered around the fact that our Congress has finally realized that you can't expect to both borrow trillions of dollars and pay off trillions of dollars at the same time. (This is especially difficult with trillions of dollars in broken programs hanging onto the trillions of dollars in revenue the government brings in. Just pointing that out.)

In fact, it's apparently gotten so bad that Congress has realized bandaids aren't going to fix their bleeding head wound. They might have to cut more than the $1.5 trillion they'd planned on from the budget deficit. Over the next decade. Of course, we can't get rid of any really important programs like that extra aircraft carrier, Congressional salaries, or the Department on Aging, but we'll see what we can do.

Meanwhile, the 2012 presidential campaign seems to be getting started. Yay. Can't wait for that drama. Something I've observed: adult drama is just as tiresome as teenage drama, they're just older, and political drama is just as tiresome as adult drama, it's just the politicians have more money to spend. (We won't get started on celebrity drama; it's basically just teenage drama with more public scrutiny.)

Rick Perry, Texas' very beloved governor is cementing his run for President, most notably with a day of prayer he hosted recently. Of course, all the conservative Christians are now singing his praises, declaring that they'd love such a righteous president. Blech. Study what he's done to Texas sometime, then come talk to me.

The rest of the GOP field is just as depressing, with the hesitant exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson: Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Allen West. It reads like a list of who's-who of warmongering Republicans. But I'm being unkind. Can't have that.

I've not really researched the Democratic field, but I'm pretty sure (quite positive, actually) that President Obama will be their candidate. Not only is he in a strong position as an incumbent president, no matter how unpopular, but he still has the hearts of quite a portion of the Democratic voting base. And so, this race will come down to Obama and the candidate who wants to get butchered in the polls.

A Rant on Paul

Rand Paul is the country's new up-and-coming. The savior of the liberty movement. The amazing, awesome, splendiferous son of Ron Paul, the almighty one.

Alright, maybe not that bad. But you'd think it, with the reaction he's getting in some circles.

I know several people who are known for berating the Republicans and Democrats for lemming behavior. Then they do this: vote for a name like 'Paul', without thought to the actual beliefs of said Paul.

However, I will not support Rand. Why? The reasons are simple: I just don't agree with him. At all. He supports the war in Afghanistan. He supports measures like the PATRIOT act. He is for banning of abortion and granting person hood to unborn children. He has even said he is not a Libertarian, and doesn't want to be identified with the group.

So why in the world are Libertarians falling for him?

And many are- I know several. I think it can be traced back to the issue of his last name and his parentage. Yet do we really want a dynastic Congress? Really?

Furthermore, I think many Paulite Libertarians have fooled themselves into thinking Rand is lying for the purposes of political expediency, for which there is no proof. Could he be lying? Certainly. However, Rand has no record whatsoever. We don't know how he will vote. Hence, I must assume that what he says is what he truly believes. And frankly, what he says I don't agree with.

So I find the willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt a bit puzzling. I know that his positions don't align with some of the beliefs of my friends. So why are they following him so ardently?

Current Events

Yes, yet another combined-issue post. I've been pretty busy lately, trying to raise funds for a missions trip to Africa I'm taking this summer. But I thought I'd just go over a few recent issues, and give my take.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdulmutallab too

The Obama admin caved. They're not going to hold Mohammed's trial in NYC anymore, which really shows yet another incredible lack of political backbone. But I digress. Apparently, too many people found it unpalatable for him to be tried in NYC, which for myself I see as a very proper venue. It would show that we're not afraid to face our past demons.

(And of course, any event like this can't go without its mention of the most recent big, bad, scary terror plot- this time in the form of the "Underwear Bomber". Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California, stated-
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," (!!!!) "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."

I find it quite hilarious that people actually think this kid who couldn't even light the bomb right was actually part of al Qaeda. We're talking about the organization that managed to coordinate attacks on some of the most famous landmarks in the US, not to mention plan and execute simultaneous attacks on embassies thousands of miles apart. And this kid, who had a bomb that wouldn't even take out his own seat, is representative of their organization?! Yeah, sure.)

Anyway, back to Mohammed. A bunch of people have been protesting trying Mohammed in NYC- or anywhere on US soil. Why? Well, you never know- it just might be that American values might forever be undermined if we were to take this incredibly drastic step.

Of course, this move is not without precedent. Bush also tried al Qaeda and other terror suspects- in civilian courts. 87 terror suspects, in fact. And (just an interesting little tidbit), Bill O'Reilly (one of the most outspoken voices against trying Mohammed on US soil) vigorously defended Bush's decision to allow these trials to move forward!

Healthcare and Scott Brown

Scott Brown the Republican Liberal won Massachusets, and thereby ensured that a watered-down version of healthcare reform will get through. I say watered down because he does want socialized healthcare, but just doesn't think the current plan will adequately fix things.

I happen to agree with him on the latter point. But I also happen to think we don't need another plan. I think his idea that individual states should take care of healthcare (though he seems to only half-heartedly believe in that, at best) is a good one, not to mention Constitutional.

'Course, Obama has already decided his healthcare bill ain't doing so hot, and has switched to other issues, probably in an attempt to dispel murmurs against him in the Democratic phalanx. (I think his time could be better spent trying to get DOMA or the PATRIOT act repealed, like he promised.

Middle Eastern Issues

So we're toughening sanctions on Iran (and planning to launch missiles at them), Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, an imam got shot by American troops in Kabul, and the Brits are doing investigations into Tony Blair's (Former Prime Minister of the UK) conduct concerning Iraq.

To start with Iran- I have to wonder what morality we're appealing to that gives us the right to impose sanctions on anyone, especially someone who is innocent. And Iran, to all appearances, is innocent. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that they don't have nukes, have never had nukes, and have no intention of having nukes anytime in the near future.

And, lets face it, sanctions do very little except make third-world countries even worse off. Cuba, a country that has had sanctions against it for years (while we simultaneously do business with them) is no closer to getting rid of Communism now than it was ten years ago. The people are starving, but our lofty goals of ridding the world of evil...mm, well not much progress. That is all sanctions do, in any case- rid the average people of food and supplies they need to survive.

Karzai, our lovely puppet-President in Afghanistan is opening peace/"moving forward" talks. At least he's trying. In fact, the Taliban (with the interesting stipulation that they must be "moderate" Taliban) is invited to said talks.

And the Brits are investigating Tony Blair, their former Prime Minister. Why? Because of Iraq, and his ardent support of it (and his friend, Bushie). I applaud the Brits for their ability to do so. I think we ought to do the same thing to Bush, but that might just be me. Of course, we lack the British capability to detach ourselves from our emotional turmoil. It might not work here.

Corporate Campaign Contributions?

As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a 2001 ban (Feingold-McCain) on corporate campaign contributions. I agree. Sort of, and let me explain.

I see nothing wrong with corporations exercising the first amendment right to free speech, which includes using money as leverage in a political campaign. But I also think that voters should be informed enough to watch where their prospective elected officials are getting their money.

Hence, if prospective Senator Ronald McDonald has gotten $200,000 in campaign donations from McDonalds, it might be wise for voters to wonder if there is some sort of ulterior connection between said Ronald McDonald and McDonalds, and decide their vote accordingly.

***

I can't help thinking there was something else I needed to cover. Oh well. I'm going to be doing a post on the President's State of the Union sometime this week...a week after he gave the speech. But it should be up here soon. :)

Go Broakley

So I couldn't decide. It seemed a decision between worse and worser. So go Senator Broakley. Let us win.

(And no, I don't live in Massachusets. I just thought saying something on the subject would be fun.)

Congress

We always hear about Turkey Coma. Well I have been in the sway of the Post-Christmas Coma. And trying to come out of it. Rather unsuccessfully. >.<

Let's see... Ah yes. Congress.

They slipped the healthcare bill through. On Christmas Eve. I hate that.

It's so cowardly- they can't bear to actually try to compromise and consider that they might be wrong about it; we have to get it through at all costs, even if said costs include lying about it and pushing it through when we know no one is paying attention, and they can't do anything about it.

Ugh.

Which leads me to another topic. Why is Congress in session so often?

I mean, I don't think they even have the right to say they live in their home districts anymore. They don't live there. They live in D.C. for practically the entire year. I don't see how that is good for our country. When they have enough time to pass an attaboy for an athletic 'hero', we have problems. That shows that they have entirely too much time on the floor, and not enough time actually listening to their Constitutents.

And that, in turn, leads me to yet another pet peeve.

Why in the world is the Senate/House floor always empty when anyone is speaking? I mean, it's like the minute they aren't the center of attention anymore *shoom* out the door they are.

I understand they are busy men. I mean, they have to work hard to schmooze all those lobbyists and come up with 1,000 page bills none of them even read, and of course, there's all the Pork Cram Time they have to get in. All those things are very, very important.

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

Mark Twain

Healthcare- or Insurance?

It seems to be the prevailing notion among nearly everyone that the 'healthcare' bill currently in the Congress will institute some sort of 'universal system'.

Not quite. Of course, I'd have quite a bit more respect for Congress if they'd just go all the way if they absolutely must pass some sort of healthcare bill and just give us a universal system. It's not as if they listen to their constituency in any case.

The bill(s) currently being proposed will not create any kind of system at all; they will merely give more power to what we already have in place. The bills will mandate health insurance coverage for every man, woman, and child, in the US, and create a radically expanded Medicare-like program for those who cannot afford private health insurance (my family would be one of these families).

However, I do not believe this will solve the problem. The insurance companies are the problem, not the lack of government involvement. Insurance companies are corrupt from the bottom up. They deny coverage to many on a regular basis, sometimes for the most idiotic reasons. They jack rates on those who are 'at risk', and people still go bankrupt.

The current bills will only cause that corruption to spread wider, and will put yet more people at the mercy of the insurance companies. Furthermore, I believe some people will simply not get coverage, as they do now, because the fines imposed for the lack of insurance will be much less than getting the actual insurance.

So these bills will not be creating a 'universal system', and will not truly solve anything.

The 'Czars'

Recently, a great furor has broken out all over America. And rightly so. President Obama has appointed several so-called 'czars' to oversee various parts of his administration.

Prior to President Obama, every president since FDR has appointed 'czars' to head various parts of his administration. FDR set the precedent with only 12 czars, and after his terms, the number began to decline. Until, that is, Bill Clinton. Clinton upped the ante with 7 czars, but HBush far out-appointed him, with 31.

President Obama has quickly outpaced even Bush, eight months into his four-year term, with 32 czars as of last count.

According to Politico, President Obama's czar positions range from an 'Afghanistan Czar' to 'WMD Policy Czar.'

Apparently, the czars are yet another layer of government, reporting directly to the President, as well as a few to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. These czars work on solutions and policy. In a way, they are somewhat like the advisement department of a company.

Of course, in the grand company of which Obama is the CEO, that role is supposed to be filled by his cabinet. But oops, somebody didn't tell that to FDR or to Obama. Quite an oversight there.

According to a professor of government at Dartmouth College, Linda Fowler, "presidents often appoint czars in a symbolic move to show they care about an issue. They also are trying to control a sprawling bureaucracy..."

Personally, I think this system of czars is messed up. The President isn't supposed to control policy on any issue at all! Having czars to do his bidding is even more unconstitutional. The czars are filling a role which is supposed to be handled by Congress.

Of course, if Congress wasn't so busy with all the other junk they deal with, they might be able to fill their Constitutional capacity better.

Continental Congress 2009

Continental Congress main site

Mandatory Service Plan

Anyone up for some mandatory volunteer service this afternoon?

That's right. The newest plot our lovely Congress has hatched is this lovely plan to 'promote' volunteerism among our nation's youth! So we can 'better our nation and the global community!'

'Cuz people work so much harder towards a noble goal when they're forced, dont'cha know.

Anyway- HR 1444 would authorize the creation of a Congressional Commission on Civic Service.

Some of the goals of the commission the bill would create were stated this way:
"[To decide] Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

Sorry, but a forced use of my time- in a 'voluntary' civic program- doesn't sound fair or reasonable to me! And:

"[To determine] The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

Oh joy. So we can become ever more efficient members of the Government Machine.

Yay.

So, all of you who are looking forward to growing up under an Obama administration, take heart! You'll be able to participate in a volunteer program. That is actually mandatory. But, they don't want you to know about that.

So, just act surprised when they tell you have no choice, hmm?

545 vs. 300,000,000

545 vs 300,000,000
Original Article
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Finally- Optimism...sort of

In his speech to congress last night, President Obama finally showed a little optimism about this 'crisis'. Maybe because his bill got passed? Anyway- apparently, the Congress just loved it, standing and applauding him several times.

Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:

"Now is the time to act boldly and wisely - to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jump-start job creation, re-start lending and invest in areas like energy, healthcare and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down."

I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not

All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.

Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.

Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?

My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.

"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."

Oh gosh. There is no nice way to say this- President Obama is not being very truthful. Oh yeah- "I'm trying to create jobs, make you utterly dependent on the government, and control every little facet of your lives, but hey- I still don't believe in big government!" President Obama may not believe in larger government. That might be because he believes in a government consisting of one person!! (aka.- a dictatorship.)

"Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5m jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."

First of all- 3 and a half million jobs? That isn't very much (considering the 500 million that are losing their jobs monthly!), and thinking of how frantic Obama was about how many Americans were losing their jobs daily. Sure a lot more than 3 million. Come to think of it, how do you 'create' jobs?

Oh! I know! Hire some people to dig holes, then more to fill them in! Yay! The government takes care of us! Hail the Leader!

"Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Healthcare professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make."

Okay...so we're forcing businesses to keep employees that are unneedful, and are simply draining resources. Wow. I like it. It's so...Communism-y. And that's what we want, right?!

"Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college."

Things like this make me want to work my way through college just so I can prove that I can do it. So I can prove that I don't need the government's help. To prove that even though I'm 'struggling', I don't need money that, ultimately, is coming out of some other person's pocket in the form of taxpayer dollars. Or, my own, if I pay taxes.

Now just a few fun little quotes that I won't comment on:

"And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy."

"So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse."

"I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."

"In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalysed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."

Short and sweet- a Communism-laced speech. Read the entire transcript here- if you can stomach it.

$787 billion Stimulus passes

Yep, it passed. Great. I'm so proud of my congressmen. At least not many of the republicans went over. (surprise, surprise.) No House republicans joined the democratic socialist side, and only three of them joined the democrats in the Senate. Seven democrats joined the republicans in the House.

The bill was passed in the House 246 to 183, in the Senate 60 to 38. They didn't pass this bill until almost 11 pm. Why? They were waiting for a democrat senator to get back. Leave him and vote, I say. But, the bill needed 60 votes to either pass or not. Before the senator got back, the vote stood at 59 to 38. So, here comes the senator from Ohio, and casts his vote in favor.

Wonderful. The bill is expected to go to Obama's office this Monday. When he'll sign it. For his 'quick jolt' to the economy. His four-year 'quick jolt'. I'm so proud of my lawmakers in Washington. Not.

Stimulus Plan

Going through, as we all expected. $790 billion of our tax dollars are going to be pledged to this plan. Of course, it's all for a good cause, since we'll jolt the economy over the course of 4 years and finally end up with thousands, maybe even millions of more jobs, to ease the plight of those 500 million Americans who are losing jobs!

The Senate is probably going to vote on this bill today or tomorrow. And the Republicans got what they wanted and are probably going to go along with it. Again.

Anyway. The liberal senators who drafted the bill got a bunch of their social projects passed. And the three Republicans that joined the bandwagon negotiated them down 100 billion. Or tried.

According to the news story, the bill has three major targets of interest: tax cuts for civilians and businesses, investments in alternate energy and health care, funding for government infrastructure programs, and aid to both state and local governments...including aid to individuals who are unemployed.

And our tax dollars are going to do...what again? None of those things are any of the government's business. Except maybe the infrastructure. The tax cuts- well, taxes such as we pay now should never have been instituted in the first place. Let's abolish 'em. Alternate energy? A private sector issue. Let the energy companies deal with it if you're so manic about it, and leave my tax dollars where they belong. Health care? Sorry, that isn't my problem. Or the Senator's from Ohio. Yeah. Aid to state and local governments? This one...well, I guess it is sort of the government's job to take care of their underlings. But isn't that what marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and all that other cool stuff they make money off of for?

And aid to people that are unemployed. And lack health care. They'll find a job someday. It may take awhile, but if they're good workers, why are they unemployed? It isn't the government's job to take care of them with money that doesn't even exist except in somebody's mind.

Nancy Pelosi said on the subject- "We have come to an agreement with the Senate as to how we will go forward and I think people are happy about that. There are some provisions we wish that were still there, but the fact is that there's plenty there to create nearly 4 million jobs that the president has set as our goal." (emphasis mine)

OK. Yeah. Sure Mrs. Speaker. We're all behind you! Not.

Once again, the congress is not listening to their constituency. Remind you of...oh, I don't know...a repressive regime under a King, and a parliment that didn't listen? Yeah...

Humor: Congressional Code

Just a little bit of humor to liven things up, written from the perspective of a congressman. Yes, I did write this. :P

Bailout- Another check we write. We like to say this one also helps 'Main Street'. Rarely does, though. Also see 'stimulus'.

Bill- The fetus of a law. We like bills, especially ones we draft ourselves!

Bipartisanship- Something we love, because it means we don't have to pretend we're different anymore!

Child Protection Acts- A wonderful way to get all your pork passed, all at once! Child protection- everyone loves these bills, regardless of whether they have children or not. It's for the children, after all.

Civil Rights- A term we just love to pass legislation on! You see, no one objects if you pass a law under the guise of it helping the poor, beleagured African-American working-class man!

Constituency- An abstract concept we don't quite understand. We left them behind a long time ago, and every now and then we get e-mails from them. Also see 'voters'.

Constitution- We're not quite sure what the use of that musty old document is. However, we do know that the voters love hearing about it, so we have to throw it in there.

Crisis- In other words- we're trying to drum this up to sound really, really bad.

Democrat- Someone who also likes stimulus.

Employment- A handy keyword we use when we try to distract people from what we're really doing.

Federal Reserve- The people that made up the Fed were truly enlightened. Oh, and all that business about the 'Creature from Jekyll Island'? Pure hogwash.

Global Warming and/or Climate Change- Since no one really knows what's going on, we're able to keep people fighting among themselves over global warming. And more check-writing!

Gun control- Another gimmick that we love to pull on the voters. Second amendment rights are a hot topic- and one that handily distracts everyone from what we're actually doing, all behind closed doors!

Immigration- Especially illegal immigration- a great way to distract attention...and oh! More checks!

Main Street- Really means 'Wall Street', but you're not supposed to know that. Also see 'stimulus'.

Presidential Race- Something we all like to participate in. After all, the more we agree with the President, the more cool things we can get passed!

Pork- Ah, pork. We could write sonnets on the subject. Pork allows us to do everything we ever wanted to do- get more salary, help our constituency and pay for it with their taxes...oh, there's nothing to compare to the power of pork. Also, its a nice dish with some green beans and cranberry sauce.

Promptly- Really means 'slowly and as inefficiently as possible'...unless of course, we're trying to pass a pet bill, in which case 'promptly' really means as quickly as possible, with no time to take a breath.

Republican- Someone who likes stimulus.

Rights- We enjoy giving people rights. By telling people what they can and cannot do, we have supreme power, resting right where it should be.

Sanctity of Marriage, Marriage Equality- Another of those wonderful gimmicks to distract you, the average voter! And it works! Better and better!!

Stimulus- We need to stimulate the big businesses so they'll stimulate our pockets. And an excuse to write a check!

United Nations- The organization we all kowtow to. You see, the UN is our main authority now, and we require permission from them to do nearly everything, including wage war and manage our citizens. Oh, and it's a nice excuse for another check! Yay! Of course, we can always ignore the UN if they aren't convenient.

Veto- Ah yes, the dreaded veto. If the president vetoes our pet bill, we will hate him forever. Hence why he rarely vetoes our pet bills.

Vote- Something we enjoy doing so we can pass our bills that don't really benefit Main Street.

Voters- Abstract people we can't buy off, hence of no value to us. Also see 'constituency'.