Egypt Riots could lead to less freedom

Thousands of people in the streets of Egypt send a powerful message to the world indeed. One thing is clear, the good people of Egypt want more freedom. The way these people are going about it however might not be in their best interest. After watching closely all the reports and analysis on these events over the last few days I am left with the feeling that many do not fully understand what is really going on over there. I'm not suggesting that I personally understand all the dynamics myself, I'm just pointing out that there is little or no consensus on the matter.
In fact I'll admit that my knowledge on Egyptian history is limited, but I do know people who have traveled all over the middle east as well and claim that Egypt was stable and safe in comparison.

Sometime it's better to deal with the Devil you know.

President Mubarak hardly a true democratic leader with 30 years of rule under his belt might not be what I as an American look up to as role model but I can envision a much worse situation for the country of Egypt. If he is removed by force who will take control? Will the people of Egypt be able to secure freedom in their own country and form a real system of self governance free from Sharia Law? Or will it be like the overthrow of the Shaw in Iran; if the Muslim Brotherhood is able to gain control will the Egyptian people find themselves less free. Right now there are far more questions than answers.

Cheers,

Mike

2011 SOTU

President Obama is a good speaker, whether he uses a teleprompter or not. Much of his speech tonight was the expected Rhetoric with a softer tone than his last SOTU. Missing from this years speech are the comments suggesting that he inherited the mess from the last guy. Also missing from this speech was any mention of removing our troops from the Middle East. New this year were comments suggesting that he is ready from more free market participation, but this is a far cry from his actions so far during his first 2 years in office.

He made a comment about need for simplified Tax Code. Maybe he's thinking Fair Tax? Yeah Right!! He also promised us that 80% of the Nation will have access to High Speed rail. How exactly will this happen? I'm not sure where he got the idea to include this in his SOTU address but it's a pipe dream, it's simply not possible, not while he's in office. High Speed rail is so expensive and so hotly disputed right now he couldn't make good on a promise to provide 6 major cities high speed rail much less 80% of the Nation.

The tone of this address shows that President Obama realizes he is being watched closely. He acknowledges we are listening to him and paying close attention to his actions. Now it comes down to what he will actually do. Will be continue with the global interventionist policy both parties have adopted? Will he allow for more free market competition?

Only time will tell. (But I'm not holding my breath)

Cheers,


Mike

Danville, IL SOTU Drinking Game

The Time- 8:00PM Central Standard Time
The Place- Your pub of choice

If you can't make it out, play from home.

Alcohol need not be a requirement, the game can be played with anything.
Leftists may prefer to use Kool-Aid

The Rules are simple.

Hope = Drink
Change = Drink
Applause = Drink
Any Mention of Corporations, Wallstreet, or CEO's = Drink
Civility = Drink
Any mention of Republicans or Bi-partisanship = Drink
Use of the code word "Investment" which means more Government Spending = Drink


Anyone Shown Sleeping = 2 Drinks
If John Boehner cries = 2 Drinks
If anyone Yells Liar = 2 Drinks

Any Mention of Obama Care =Shot
Green Energy = Shot
Gun Control = Shot

Seating Buddies for State of the Union address

COME ON!!!

Now there will be Seating Buddies for State of the Union address. This means the R's and D's are encouraged to sit next to one another during the speech. This is to show unity between the parties. B.S. This is nothing more than another smoke screen attempt to blur the lines so the folks who do not follow politics day to day will not see the typical one side cheers while the other is silent routine. This does nothing but make it more difficult to determine who supports the bullet points he will choose to share on Tuesday. This will also make it much more difficult to determine who supports the House Attempt to repeal "Obama Care" as well as other current hot button issues soon to be decided.

Why is everyone so concerned about how it looks. The two sides are opposed to one another on many issues. That's how politics works. This change is purely cosmetic, it's all about image. The Democrats were all about elections have consequences in 2008 and 2009 now they are going do everything they can soften the blow of the 2010 elections, because they were absolutely correct elections do have consequences. In 2010 those consequences marked an end to the Socialist push by our President.

Cheers,

Mike

Atlas Shrugged becoming more real everyday!!!

A popular topic by those who fully understand what's going on in our Country today is how Ayn Rands greatest work "Atlas Shrugged", reads like a manual on how the U.S. will evolve (Or de-evolve) Those of us like to point out characters in the book and explain how they fit into todays society. The man many like to point to in place of Wesley Mouch is Tim Gietner or even Ben Bernanke but neither in my opinion really fit. Over a year ago some were suggesting Jeffrey Immelt might be one who best fit this character and that was well before he was given a real seat at the actual table of government power.

Jeffrey Immelt has been appointed by President Obama to lead a new White House panel to work more closely with big business. Immelt as CEO of GE Corp has already used his corporate resources to help the administration and the agenda of President Obama. Some of his past actions are highly questionable and lead some to ask whether they were not purely political. GE is now heavily invested in Green Energy at a time when it's mostly the Government and not the Free Market pushing for more Green Energy technology.

Now Immelt will be more involved in assisting other big businesses on how to reduce unemployment while working more closely with the current administration. This leads me to ask, what will happen to those who don't work closely with the current administration? Is Immelt Wesley Mouch? I don't know, but he looks like he wants the job.

Cheers,

Mike

WoW 18

Olberman Fired!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/keith-olbermann-countdown-over_n_812506.html

Jeffrey Immelt (A.K.A Weasley Mouch)get a seat at the table.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012107041.html

New GM Jobs in Mexico
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70J3DT20110120

House repeals Obama Care
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/19/health.care/?hpt=T1

Leftists Protest Wal-Mart Developer With a "Target"
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/walmart-flier.jpg

Ron Paul on Guns and Violence
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1293

Religion and Libertarianism

Religion and Libertarianism are natural allies. Libertarians do not care what religion you practice as long as you refrain from forcing this religion onto others. The only time a genuine liberty minded individual will squawk at religion is when said religion begins to force itself onto you either through violence or the worst case scenario government endorsement. Even atheist Libertarians who denounce the very existence of a higher power will often fight for your right to practice this belief. Religion in return holds out hope to save as many unbelievers as possible. Christians tend to embrace this as a challenge always reminding the other side that their door is open when they are ready.

There is however a force that goes against both of these philosophies. Totalitarianism or any political ideology that nears it, must do away with both the religious as well as the individualist in order to rule. A government must eliminate or suppress expression of faith in order to gain full control of heart and mind. This must of course include any person or group who only want to make decisions for themselves. It's time people of faith take a good hard look at the political climate and decide their position in the battle at hand. Who is really on your side?

Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stand against Judgment?

I heard something yesterday that made me think differently about the legacy of Dr. King. You hear so much today about what he stood for and what his message means but often we forget to look at his words and his actions. It it suggested by some that he stood against judgment, that he believed we should not be judged by one another. Dr. King if often held up by liberal activists as a beacon of hope for various movements that fight against favored bias. Many of these people forget or overlook that if King were alive today he would be written off as just another wacko from the religious right.

Dr. King told us himself that he dreamed of a day when people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. He did not suggest that we should not be judged, in fact he suggested that we would always be judged. His main concern was that judgment be meaningful and substantive. Consider this the next time someone holds out MLK Jr. as justification of their stance. Look at their Character and ask yourself if it's genuine or if it's a ploy to gain credibility.

Cheers,

Mike

Mark Kirk Town Hall at Kirkland College

Tonight Mark Kirk the newly elected Illinois Senator held a Town hall meeting at Kirkland College. As many who read this will know, I am no fan of Mr. Kirk. That said, I must admit that tonight he sounded like a conservative. It's too bad I know how he tends to vote. He did defend many of the positions I have, He claimed to be in support of major spending cuts and also pledged his support for the Republican push to repeal "Obama Care". After a brief presentation he fielded questions from the audience.

One of these question from an older gentleman who sounded like he scripted it from last Fridays episode of Beck asked Mr. Kirk to oppose another raise in the debt ceiling. Kirk responded without giving a firm answer one way or another on how he would vote on this, but he did give the warning of the Government running out of money and literally shutting down sometime around March. He warned of Social Security Checks not going out and Naval Ships docking without fuel. Many in the Audience made audible sighs at this point and the hum of quiet whispers could be herd throughout the crowd. Another man retorted that Government didn't need to shut down but instead many cuts would need to be made. Mr. Kirk then responded that he would rather see a measure that would allow another one time raise with an attached balance budget rule to restrict new spending measures.

In his opening Kirk explained his love of math and science and how the only answer to 2 + 2 is 4. This was challenged by a University of IL Professor of Science who urged Mark Kirk to Oppose any new legislation that would tax carbon output. This Professor announced the idea of Global Warming being related to Carbon output as ridiculous and simply inaccurate, not because he read some book or website but because he had done the work and hands on research. Kirk affirmed his flipped position on "Cap-n-Trade" and vowed that any such legislation was dead. (Let's not forget it has already passed the House with help of his own vote so if it does come up again we'll need to hold him to this)

Mr. Kirk was also asked if he would support the Fair Tax to assist in keeping taxes from continuing to rise. Kirk responded by saying, "He would fear the end result of such a measure coming through with the current administration". He then tried to explain the dangers of VAT taxing leading some to question if he was comparing the Fair Tax to VAT's (Value Added Taxes) which of course is not the case. This lead to a follow up pointing out that the Fair Tax was not a VAT and actually made VAT very difficult to enact.

Another man apparently a Reverend from a local Church inquired about a committee on minority relations. Kirk replied that he had been working with someone from Chicago but was in need of additional down state support. Kirk gave this gentleman the opportunity to volunteer if interested.

The final topic was Jobs. I felt the responses to this question were a little weak but Kirk did make one statement that embodied the general tone. All the problems in the world can be fixed when we have a good economy, but when the economy is bad, fixing anything is well difficult. Much was said about making it easier for small business to expand.

Also in attendance for this Town Hall Meeting was the Freshman IL House Representative for the 105th District Jason Barickman. Jason fielded a few questions but the most impressive was on Full Forensic Audit of Illinois. He claimed that this was a good idea and he would support it. Jason also feels Illinois needs to make better decisions making it less restrictive for new busineses in Illinois to get running. He Pointed out how much less expensive it was to simply start a L.L.C in Indiana compared to Illinois as one small example.

After the Town Hall Meeting Kirk and Barickman spoke to constituents and were quite accessible.

It's hard to admit this being someone who did not support him but Mr. Kirk is a rather likable person.

Cheers,


Mike

Civility

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

-U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski (D)

The very same esteemed gentleman from Pennsylvania recently called for Civility in political discussion in the aftermath of the Arizona shooting which took the lives of six and left Congresswomen Giffords gravely injured. It seems to me that Civility is something Mr. Kanjorski is not qualified to discuss.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I am an American

I believe speaking out against my Government is a responsibility

I am not Civil

I question the motives of those whose opinion is radically different from my own

I am not Civil

I believe in Freedom and Liberty

I am not Civil

I love the U.S. Constitution

I am not Civil

I challenge those around me when I hear inaccurate information

I am not Civil

I demand the Truth

I am not Civil

It seems that the progressive definition of Civility means that we cannot act as free citizens of a Constitutional Republic. We must subdue our own thoughts as well as our voice in order to allow those who wish it, to fundamentally transform our Country. I refuse to accept this definition of Civility.

I am not Civil

Politics of Giffords shooting

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,”

The Media in general did not even wait a day to begin their analysis on the thoughts and intentions behind the shooting in Arizona. Worse than the media analysis was the willingness to report on the opinions of the Sheriff and others who wanted to tie this in with the Tea Party and Sarah Palins "targeting" of Giffords in last Novembers election. Much of this was openly shared as opinion and not at all based in fact, but was reported and shared nonetheless. Also interesting are the facts that are not being openly reported or shared.

Even more disturbing is how many people are quick to jump on the hate bandwagon. Sarah Palin as usual is a favorite target, (Pun intended) as evidenced by new groups popping up like the Kill Sarah Palin group "If you want that bitch to die join up". The Tea Party and those who share many of the same beliefs are being used as the whipping boy in the aftermath of this tragic event. Regardless of the motives for the shooting it is clear that Jared Loughner is deeply disturbed.

Either way you look at the situation the relentless attempts to make his actions out to be slanted right or left are sickening. Everyone needs to take a step back and consider that the actions of a disturbed individual are just that, disturbing.

Update (1-10-2011 11:20PM)
Facebook has removed the "Kill Sarah Palin Group" Thank you to all those who helped report the site and it's Admin. Hopeful everyone who joined that site will have a few eyes on them for awhile.

Cheers,

Mike

The 14th Amendment was not about Anchor Babies!

The 14th Amendment one of the three Amendments known as the the reconstruction amendments were ratified in the 5 year period directly after the Civil War. These amendments were intended to restructure the United States from a country that was half slave to a wholly free nation. It is incorrect to include these amendments under the same category as those written by our "Founding Fathers" since Abraham Lincoln albeit a great president, was after all our 14th. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were Ratified between 1865 and 1870 several decades after the Constitution was ratified. It is clear that the citizenship clause was intended to combat the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling that dictated that black slaves were not U.S. Citizens.

They, both the Founding Fathers as well as the legislators in 1868 could not have imagined a time were pregnant immigrants would hurry to our borders in order to gain citizenship and welfare. With this in mind it makes perfect sense to update the constitution in the proper way to account for this worldly change in attitude and circumstance. This is why our founding fathers left us a built in mechanism for updating the U.S. Constitution so we may keep up with the times when needed.

I do not personally agree with the concept that the U.S. Constitution is "living and breathing", as most who use this terminology allude to change the meaning of the words within the document and not the document itself. The document can be amended, but this does not change the meaning of the words within or the original intention of those who wrote the words. You must ALWAYS, consider that the writers of any text actually intended when they wrote the words you can not simply apply current understanding to words written 100 years ago.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in the distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

-James Madison

Cheers,

Mike

Opps, more truth leaks out

THIS CONSTITUTION LOVING IS GETTING OUT OF HAND!!! Gotta love Joy...

Rep. Jared Polis show his ignorance

REP. Jared Polis thinks that there is no such thing as a person or a baby that has never accessed the Health Care system. There are few things I'd like to comment on here.

1. There are many citizens who are fighting for the freedom to not be forced into mandatory use of the Health Care system. They do not want to be forced into use of a hospital for giving birth. They do not want to be required to give inoculations and they most certainly do not want Obama Care.
   
2. The Democrats forced "Obama Care" on the Nation because of all the people who did not have access to Heath Care, in particular the children. Now this Democrat says, "Every Human being in this country has access to health care". His words, not mine. If this is true doesn't that make Obama Care completely unnecessary?
3. Mr. Polis said, "if you find that baby and identify them, than I'd be willing to have that conversation". Perhaps we should be sending evidence of these to Mr. Polis's Attention so he may be better prepared for that conversation.
   

Cheers,

Mike

Today's Libertarians are the real Conservatives

Yes I believe today's Libertarians are the real Conservatives in the political spectrum. I know many people such as Popular Media Personality Mark Levin take issue with this idea so I'm not going to ask you to take my word for it. Instead ask Ronald Reagan, who Mark Levin worked for and continually holds up as an marquee example of Modern Conservatism. The following is excerpt from a 1975 interview with Ronald Reagan featured in Reason Magazine.

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

If Ronald Reagan said it, it must be true, right?

The Term Conservative did not come into regular use until the 1950's. First published in 1976, and revised in 1996, George H. Nash’s book "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America" has become the unquestioned standard in the field of modern conservatism. It's history starts in 1945 and Chapter one is titled "The Revolt of the Libertarians".

Few people back then used the word Conservative until a book was published in 1953 by Russel Kirk called the "Conservative mind". The "National Review" a mainstream Conservative magazine didn't begin until 1955.

People like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh today help enforce the idea that Libertarians are not Conservative when nothing could be farther from the truth. In actuality Today's Modern Conservatives are no longer Conservative.


Cheers,

Mike

Frances Fox Piven calls the jobless to violence.

In her recent article posted by "The Nation" Frances Fox Piven calls on the jobless to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force. Like the original call by her and her late Husband Richard Cloward The Nation is still ready and willing to be beacon of violence and revolution in the U.S. So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs, she asks? "After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEO's report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn't the unemployed be on the march? Why aren't they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs"?

Our nation has not long to go before we see actions like this as a real possibility. If you have a subscription to the The Nation you should share this with as many people as you can, otherwise you might want to get one, so you can stay up on the actions and strategy of the Progressive left.

Click Here to learn more about Cloward and Piven!


Cheers,

Mike