Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Editor's Note

I apologize to all visitors who have come here seeking articles with the latest on politics.

I've  begun blogging about two months ago and have last week increased the frequency of articles posted.

I've been in the midst of two long article, one regarding Boehner's plan which the CBO found to be entirely different than he claimed it was, the other about Palin.To make a long story short, I had issues with my laptop and ended up losing both articles. To top off all the lost hours and work, I don't have the time to rewrite them since I'm taking my wife on a scheduled vacation.

I'll be back to next Monday or Tuesday with articles posted on a regular basis.

Thanks for your understanding.

Morning Opinion Round-Up

"Thoughts with your Coffee"
Andrew Klavan – Pajamas Media:
Just Words?

Roger Kimball – Pajamas Media:

The debt ceiling and the fifth labor of Heracles

Victor Davis Hanson – Pajamas Media:

Our Ten-Trillion-Dollar Man

George F. Will – Washington Post:

Congress stands its ground

Jeffrey H. Andersen – The Weekly Standard:

Is Obamacare the Source of Obama’s Approval Woes?

Robert Samuelson – RCP:

The Crisis of the Old Order

David Horowitz – Front Page Mag:

The Character Assassination of Robert Spencer

Bridget – Hill Buzz:

GOP Plan vs Harry Reid’s Plan

Stacy Drake – Conservatives4Palin:

The Extremism of Roger Cohen

Michael O'Brien – The Hill:

Bachmann has skipped 37 percent of votes since launching bid

Doug Powers – Michelle Malkin:

Harry Reid Favors Huntsman Over Romney

Jennifer Rubin – Washington Post:

White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Blog of the Day!

A heartfelt thank you to William A. Jacobson, editor of Legal Insurrection for honoring this blog with the title "The Blog of the Day."

Legal Insurrection is a great Conservative site. Through humor and logic, the editor and contributors present political updates and information in the right perspective.

The Audacity of Chutzpa; the Arrogance of Washington

First Obama demands his bluff not be called, next he wants us to ignore Reid’s bluff, and now he blames the Republicans for the circus? 

Obama endorsed yesterday Harry Reid’s plan which is so mind-bogglingly absurd, any student handing in such a report would’ve received a big bold F.

Reid basically wants to raise t
he debt ceiling with 2.5 trillion dollars, to be available for immediate spending. This would last for less than two years since our current yearly debt is about 1.5 trillion. 

To balance these two and a half trillion dollars which are on top of our current 14 trillion dollar debt, he proposed a 2.7 trillion dollar spending cut which will occur throughout the next ten years.

Anyone with a calculator or pen and paper can see the ludicrousness of this proposal, but we’ll spell it out anyways.

If we continue spending at the current pace, our federal debt will increase with approximately 15-20 trillion dollars in the next ten years – depending on what the interest rates are. So in other words, Reid proposed that the entire spending cuts of these ten years amount only to a tenth of the amount of increased spending. That will leave us with an additional 13-18 trillion dollars of debt on top of the 14 trillion we currently owe.

What sort of solution is this?

It’s sort of like a kid who has a weekly allowance of twenty bucks and spends most of it on candy. The kid begs his dad for his allowance to be increased to fifty bucks and assures his dad that he’ll put aside every week a dollar so that at the end of the year he can pay his dad back over fifty dollars.

If his father would agree, this deal would amount to an additional thirty bucks a week time 52 weeks equaling $1,560 and the entire amount he’d get back at the end of the year would be fifty two bucks!

Obviously no parent would agree!

Why should our childish president receive any different treatment?

How can our leaders in Washington even propose such a ridiculously unbalanced deal?

How can Reid, Obama, or any individual tell us what policies Congress will pass in the next ten years?

Senators and congressmen are constantly voted out of office and replaced with new people as seen in 2010 causing the decision-making power to constantly shift hands.

Attention Harry and Obama: If you want a raise in the debt ceiling now than you’ve got to be ready to make cuts now. Not in ten years from now when you’ll no longer be in power.

Another thing; has anyone noticed that the entire left, starting with Obama and Reid down to every Democrat senator, congressmen, and spokesperson responds when questioned about budget cuts in affirmative but when pressed for specifics, the reply is along the lines of domestic and defense?

Domestic is not specific.

This leaves them with Defense.

Defending this country is one of the only explicit rights the federal government is granted by the constitution. Despite this fact, defense is what the Democrats wish to cut and put first on their list.

Does the left think we are so naive to believe that this country simply won’t cope without the EPA, the Housing Administration, or The Department of Education and there’s no room for their funding to be slashed, while the military has too much dough lying around?

Why should expenses the first cut on their list be that which should be the federal government’s priority in spending? Especially while we are still smack in middle of two – oops -- three wars.

It can only be one of two things: Either our leaders can’t complete simple mathematical equations, or that they couldn’t care less what happens to our country ten years down the road as long as their seat remains safe because they took some sort of action.

And after Obama’s campaign speech press conference last night, it appears to be the latter.

At the press conference last night Obama, as expected, blasted the Republicans for presenting solutions he didn’t like while offering nothing of his own except for a demand for a blank check.

Of course, he began his speech by blaming Bush.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

Here are three issues with his very first paragraph:
  • Since when are tax cuts money spent? Did Bush send these people checks? Did it come from other people’s money? Or perhaps Bush simply let people keep money belonging to them and invest it where they saw fit?

    It seems like Obama forgot about the third war the U.S. has entered without the approval of Congress, is not in the interest of the United States, supports unknown groups, and has been added on top of two ongoing wars and a deficit of 14 trillion dollars!
And here’s the surprise of all surprises! The timetable president has no timetable for withdrawal of the troops from Libya!
  • This expensive prescription drug program Obama’s blaming for the debt happened to have been drafted by Ted Kennedy, pushed for by the Democrats, and passed with the votes of the left plus several RINO’s.
If Obama is so incensed with this program, why didn’t this man/child/president confront Ted Kennedy while slobbering for Ted’s support for his presidential campaign?

This guy is totally delusional!

A ten page article wouldn’t be long enough to do justice to all the outright lies, discrepancies, and twisted facts Obama presented to the people in this one speech. And neither you nor I have the time and patience for his nonsense, so I’ll stop right here.

Instead here’s a piece of advice to Obama: You seem to have a difficult time handling people who don’t bow to your demands; so here’s my suggestion to you.

When 2012 rolls around, demand a vacation from this stressful job and we’ll surprise you with total bipartisan support to fulfill your request.

Morning Opinion Round-Up

"Thoughts with your coffee"
Dewey from Detroit:
Open Letter To the Most Arrogant and Petulant President in History: Dear Mr. Obama

Legal Insurrection:

Wisdom from Media Matters on scoring political points from violence

Nicole Coulter – Conservatives4Palin:

What President Palin Would Not Do

Whitney Pitcher – Conservatives4Palin:

What Happens When a Film about the Anti “Chicago Politician” Plays in Chicago; Update

Fox Nation:

Obama: FDR Was 'Fiscally Conservative'

David Cohen – DC:

The logical contradictions of Obama’s debt ceiling stance

Mark Steyn – NRO:

Islamophobia and Mass Murder

Juan Williams – NRO:

9/11 and Other Man-Caused Disasters

Charles Krauthammer – NRO:

The Half-Trillion Plan

Kyle Olson – Big Government:

Bill Ayer\s Decries On-Going Education Reforms in Socialist Magazine

Capitol Confidential – Big Government:

Soros Making More Cash With Congress

Matthew Vadum – Big Government:

BREAKING: ‘New’ ACORN Groups Join SEIU’s Economic Terrorism Campaign Against Lenders, Governments

Monday, July 25, 2011

Shockwaves hit NYC from the liberal epicenter; Democrat Ed Koch endorses Republican Bob Turner for Weiner’s seat!

In the upcoming special election between Bob Turner (R) and David Weprin (D) for Weiner's former seat NY-9, which will occur September 13th, Turner's campaign has just received a push forward.

The endorsement from Ed Koch, a former liberal Mayor of NYC, for Bob Turner -- the Republican candidate and a true conservative is the latest in a whole lot of other reasons why Turner has a strong chance in winning the election as discussed in my previous article; NY-9: Do you really need David Weprin who used swastikas against his opponent and dumped his religious values to promote himself?

Ed Koch's endorsement for Turner also changed the election from a mere congress seat to a referendum on Obama and his economic policies. A vote for Turner is a vote against Obama and his entire political machine.

Most of us can't support him with our votes, but we can show him support through donations to his campaign, which can be done at his website right over here. Anything sent will aid and enable him to fight the Democratic political machine of New York who is out to do their utmost to destroy him.

Bob Turner can also be followed on twitter.

Stay tuned for the latest on this special election, and let's hope that the right guy wins!

Obama wants to tax Jet Owners; how about taxing Jacuzzi Owners?

The president has in an underhanded manner just set a new tone in the country.

Until now, there have been dozens of debates over the merits of flat tax versus fair tax, or income tax versus sales tax.

Of course the liberals promoted both a sales and income tax, so as not to discriminate between consumers and business owners.

Obama however brought taxing to a new level. Regardless of the amount of income, sales, and all other taxes people pay; those that own a certain luxurious item such as a private jet should be required to pay additional taxes because of that item.

The hilarity of Obama’s new dream tax is the notion that owning certain (supposedly) luxury item throws all its owners in one category.

How about, besides for the private jet owners Obama hasn’t stopped criticizing, he should add additional luxury items and its owners to the waiting-to-be-taxed list? It’s getting kind of boring to hear him repeat the same argument so many times.

How about waging war against individuals with Jacuzzi’s built into their homes?

All Jacuzzi owners must be millionaires, billionaires or at least executives who sit in their Jacuzzis all day while the rest of the country is struggling to pay their grocery bills. Why not tax them an additional two or three percent on top of what they’re already paying? They can afford to help eliminate America’s fourteen trillion dollar debt. There, that might even get them out of their Jacuzzis.

How about luxury car owners?

Come to think of it, who will decide what’s considered luxurious? Obama can set a tax on every type of car.

Who else should pay for the Arab nations which supply us with the oil if not those that use it to drive their cars? It doesn’t matter whether you’re rich or poor, homeless or own ten homes, if you own a Honda, no matter how beaten up it is, you should be required to pay an extra -- say 2.8 percent. The same is to those with a Lexus jeep; even if you’re on food stamps and Medicaid. If you can afford the car you’ve got to be able to pay your taxes. He can demand from BMW owners an additional – say 2.4% in taxes while anyone with Aodi’s should pay 2.6%. And so on and so forth.

Especially tax worthy can be gas guzzling vehicles or large jeeps and vans that are polluting the planet according to bogus scientists. Isn’t it only logical that these people should be forced to chip in even more because the government bans drilling and opts instead to hands out two billion dollars to Brazil so they can drill there? Why shouldn’t an American driving a beautiful BMW pay for that donation?

For those of you who consider yourselves as the real middle class or even unemployed and don’t own any luxury items so there’s no need for concern from your part...I bet you didn’t think of this one!

On the census sheets we were all required to fill out last year, one of the questions struck me as funny; does this house, apartment, or mobile home have a flush toilet?

Perhaps the real reason the government needs the answer to this question is to figure out whether flush toilets can be considered a luxury item and what percentage the tax can be set at.

Sounds ludicrous? How are individuals that own private jets any different? In the left’s attempts to make all equal, they are simply trying to force everyone to give up all their valuables and luxuries until everyone will be equally poor and consider their toilets a luxury.

Notice also, that no matter the type of home, the question lumps all toilet owners into one category. Imagine a real estate broker trying to pull this onto a potential buyer.

Until then, enjoy life and enjoy flushing.

Morning Opinion Round-Up

"Thoughts with your Coffee"

Bret Jacobson – Big Government:

UPDATE: Union Goon Only Supports ‘Some’ Violence?

Bob McCarty – Big Government:

St. Louis Cookie Stand Lawsuit Goes to Court

Jeanette Pryor – Conservatives4Palin:

Why Sarah Palin Will Be the Next President of the United States

John Guardiano – Daily Caller:

The legacy media’s upside-down world

James Poulos – Daily Caller:

The end of optimism and the pursuit of happiness

Whitney Pitcher – Conservatives4Palin:

Governor Palin’s Record on Jobs Beats the GOP Field

Hugh Hewitt:

When Does The Public Get To See The Proposals?

Barry Rubin – Pajamas Media:

The Freedom-Loving Rebels Become Reactionary Oppressors

Kyle Olson – Big Government:

Court Says NAACP, Teachers Union Can’t Trap Kids in Failing Schools

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Suddenly Dick Durbin is concerned for our Military

As is well known to all, Dick Durbin has spoken unfavorably of the military on many occasions and has compared the military’s treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Nazis and Soviets and the inhumane torture they’ve carried out against their captives. 

Even though Obama’s and the Democrats’ bluff has been blown by many including mainstream Republicans such as Charles Krauthammer, Dick and the rest of the Democrats continue to bluff and attack the Republicans with a straight face as though their cover had not yet been pulled.

On CBS’s Face the Nation this morning with Bob Schieffer Dick Durbin proclaimed that if the Republicans don’t compromise and give in to the Democrats plan to raise the debt ceiling then the government will default and will therefore lead to; 


Dick is suddenly pretending to be full of love and care for the military and their families. Yes, pretending, because his statement is a massive tremendous humongous lie intended to both scare those depending on the checks and sway the general people into believing that the Democrats are those who love and care for all while the big bad Republicans don’t give a hoot about the seniors and men and women in the military.

The truth of course, is that the social security checks ARE NOT IN DANGER OF BEING HELD BACK no matter how many times Obama and all the Democrats will repeat their fear mongering lies! The Treasury has announced an expected income of 172 billion dollars for the month of August. Hence, if the debt ceiling is not raised there will be plenty of revenue to cover all the checks mentioned above plus additional expenses without any difficult decisions involved.

Dick Durbin who opposed and still opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who never conceded that the surge worked, and who lashes out against those risking their lives to fight evil is concerned not for those in the military he’s constantly criticizing but for the reelection of Obama his fellow Democrats.

Was there Global Warming in 1936? in 2011? How is it that the 75 year Record has not yet been Broken?

When trying to talk to global warming believers about its falseness, one usually hits a brick wall and deaf ears.

When massive snowstorms and blizzards hit the entire United States during the winter, the scientists changed the name of the game to climate change all the while arguing that the increased heat was actually the cause of colder winters and more snow.

Several summers ago when the heat proved to be pretty mild, that too didn’t indicate anything contrary to global warming.

Without any care whether the weather participates with their studies, the global warming instigators and believers are uninterested in debate or in an honest search for the truth.

The following news, therefore, reported by the Daily Mail last week didn’t come as too great of a surprise. BBC Trust report urges a reduction to the amount of air-time allotted to global warming skeptics and deniers since a consensus has been reached amongst most scientists about the truth of global warming.

Is it possible to cut through the density and explain to liberals that they are falling for one of the greatest hoax and myths of mankind? That in order to squelch the truth scientists must resort to calling those opposing the myth deniers as though they’re denying some evil atrocity?

Perhaps it can be done in the following manner.

The media is constantly dramatically announcing weather-breaking record, as they’ve done this past Friday in New York City. The stifling heat measured at 104 degrees which broke all previous records of the city besides for a recording of 106 degrees in 1936. The media and those supporting global warming expect us to be overwhelmed with emotion over the record-breakings and focus at the almost never before experienced heat.

Additionally, in typical liberal fashion of ignoring the facts to play with people’s emotions, the media is constantly stressing what the temperature feels like, rather than the actual degrees so that people’s perception of the heat should be inflated.

Attention all liberals:

Drop the hype and emotion and use some logic.

In 1936 nuclear energy has not yet invented, cars weren’t as commonplace as today, majority of the houses didn’t have air conditioning, and plane trips were considered a luxury. And the weather hit the never-yet beaten figure of 106 degrees!

So, while the media is enveloped in hysteria over the heat of the moment and its proof that Al Gore is right, it is actually proving the foolishness and nonsense of his theory since it was hotter in 1936 than now without all the cars and other supposed global warming causers.

On what do the scientists blame the previous heats? Why have they decided that we humans are suddenly to blame?

I don’t live in fantasy land and doubt this will convince too many believers since they refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with them as seen in BBC’s decision to limit debate, but for those undecided it might cause them to step back and think again.

Barack Obama; The Lame Duck President

I'm sick and tired of the constant critics of Sarah Palin calling her  stupid and ignorant while heralding Barack Obama as the most gifted man the universe has ever been blessed with.

Here's the idea:

How about forwarding Sarah Palin's Facebook post from Friday, posted below, to all those swooning over Obama at a time when he presents no plan whatsoever? 
After listening to the President’s press conference today, let’s keep in mind the following:

This is the same president who proposed an absurdly irresponsible budget that would increase our debt by trillions of dollars, and whose party failed to even put forward a budget in over 800 days! This is the same president who is pushing our country to the brink because of his reckless spending on things like the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” boondoggle. This is the same president who ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations and demonized the voices of fiscal sanity who proposed responsible plans to reform our entitlement programs and rein in our dangerous debt trajectory. This is the same president who wanted to push through an increase in the debt ceiling that didn’t include any cuts in government spending! This is the same president who wants to slam Americans with tax hikes to cover his reckless spending, but has threatened to veto a bill proposing a balanced budget amendment. This is the same president who hasn’t put forward a responsible plan himself, but has rejected reasonable proposals that would tackle our debt. This is the same president who still refuses to understand that the American electorate rejected his big government agenda last November. As I said in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Tax Day Tea Party rally, “We don’t want it. We can’t afford it. And we are unwilling to pay for it.”

Now the President is outraged because the GOP House leadership called his bluff and ended discussions with him because they deemed him an obstruction to any real solution to the debt crisis.

He has been deemed a lame duck president. And he is angry now because he is being treated as such.

His foreign policy strategy has been described as “leading from behind.” Well, that’s his domestic policy strategy as well. Why should he be surprised that he’s been left behind in the negotiations when he’s been leading from behind on this debt crisis?

Thank you, GOP House leaders. Please don’t get wobbly on us now.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

Thanks to Texans For Sarah Palin for linking to this piece!

Friday, July 22, 2011

Politico’s editor-in-chief John Harris doesn’t seem to read Politico!

Imagine the reaction of the media, if a reporter from Fox News who constantly attacked Obama and the Democrats would join the official team of a Republican campaign.

To say the media would go wild would be the understatement of the year.

Protests, and boycotts against the journalist’s previous workplace would be promoted by the entire mainstream media and the reporter and the candidate would be denounced by all.

Such a reporter would definitely never be accepted back into the folds of journalism, after all he besmirched the entire journalistic machine with his obviously partisan and one-sided reports, all in the effort of being seen and accepted by some political campaign.


Politico reporter Andy Barr has covered national politics since 2008 and has shown, as most of the Politico reporters, open admiration for the leftist agenda and contempt for Sarah Palin specifically as well as other Conservatives while claiming to be an honest reporter who reports without favoring one side over the other.

He had done such a hell of a job smearing the right and promoting the left, that he’s been officially hired by the Democratic Party to drop the official non-partisan title and get paid by them to continue his partisan work!


There’s more! 

Barr is not the first Politico reporter to leave for a Democratic gig. Congressional reporter Jonathan Allen left Politico in 2009 to work as an aide to Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat, but he returned to Politico in 2010.

Politico’s editor-in-chief, John Harris, responded to questions about Barr’s departure, writing in an email that the website’s management does not “worry about someone’s personal ideology so long as it is understood that their responsibilities at Politico mean leaving personal views at the door.”
Oh yeah? Are Roger Simon’s attacks at the evil Rupert Murdoch because of Murdoch’s purchase of the newspaper Simon worked on also considered “leaving personal views at the door?”

What about the entire Politico machine pouncing upon the Republican African American Congressman Allen West from Florida for an email he sent to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Does that too stem from pure journalistic motives?

Oh, and let’s not forget that several Politico reporters including Mike Allen, Lisa Lerer, and. Ben Smith who joined over a hundred liberal Journolists posing as trustworthy reporters while having toiled together to destroy the Conservative movement in every way possible. These reporters definitely left their “personal views at the door.”

I think “personal views displayed openly for all” is a better description of Politico reporters.

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thoughts with your Coffee"

Jazz Shaw – Hot Air:
Texas: We won’t be able to “keep the lights on”

David Bossie – DC:

Barack to business as usual

Jamie Weinstein – DC:

TheDC’s Jamie Weinstein: On MSNBC, the N isn’t for ‘News’

Alex Pappas – DC:

Politico reporter who covered Palin quits for Democratic Party job

Paul Revoir – Daily Mail:

Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged 'more vigorously', says report on science output

Jazz Shaw – Hot Air:

Finally! Somebody to take on Christie in NJ

Tina Korbe – Hot Air:

Jim Jordan to Harry Reid: “Gang of 234″ just showed you the way forward

Susan Anne Hiller – Big Government:

Sebelius vs. Orszag on HHS’s Power Over Health Care Rationing

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Liberal Drone Attacks on America are Unconstitutional

Ron Paul and the far left of the liberal blogosphere are constantly criticizing the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan as unconstitutional.

In their involvement of the drones overseas, they overlook an entire fleet of liberal drones operating right here on our shores.

Although there are several different models and makes of the liberal drone, the most popular and most commonly spotted models are those under thirty, those that never bothered creating anything out of their lives, and those born with silver spoons in their mouths.

These liberal drones swoop down and attack countless people including employers, employees, successful executives, the rich, the happy, the religious, and those with values. People who’ve been innocently enjoying their lives until these liberal drones attacked and wrought damage on them and the entire country. 

Surprisingly, majority of these drones are financed and fly at the expense of those they attack. A large percentage of these drones – such as many college students -- receive free insurance, food, education amongst other freebies.

I therefore felt it vitally important to research the status of these liberal drones and the constitutionality of their attacks in the hope that the left will pick up the lead and take over, since the left is known for their deep love and defense of constitutional principles as seen in their fight against drone attacks overseas.

Liberal drone attacks is not a recent technology that has been invented only the lasts several decades.

Several hundred years ago hundreds of people traveled months on rickety boats across the unknown ocean in search for freedom and in escape of oppression from their current leaders. Although these people settled hundreds of miles away from their European homelands, the colonies were 
taxed and controlled by the English. 

As is well-known, the colonists protested the European dominance, dumped the tea over the Boston Harbor, and eventually won the war for independence against the mighty English.

Although the United States has won their freedom from foreign powers in 1783, it has faced and continues to face increasingly stronger and greater damage-causing attacks from within of liberal drones attempting to limit individual freedom.

Less than a century later, Abraham Lincoln, a staunch conservative, fought for the freedom of African Americans, against the liberals who fought the end of slavery, causing the war with the largest loss of American lives in the entire American history.

Today, over a century later, and the liberals are glossing over their support of slavery and segregation instead presenting themselves as the champions for the rights of all.

Not included in the “rights of all” is the economic sector of our country where companies actually dare make money whether through mining for coal, building nuclear plants, or drilling for oil and gas on American land and water. Of course, the liberals have donned their opposition to energy independence in the cloak of saving the planet, first from global warming and then from climate change.

Rather, “rights for all” is defined by promoting the drilling of oil and other energy producing efforts in other countries through billions of U.S. dollars thrown their way to support those efforts. How heartwarming!

The liberals then progressed to the health care sector of this great nation which was, and still is so far, the most advanced and sophisticated in the entire world, but is becoming increasingly more and more like the European models.

Knowing an open attack to destroy healthcare as it was known would expose their true intentions and lead to nowhere, they advanced in a stealthy underhanded manner. They first began with trial lawyers and lawsuits against doctors amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars which caused doctor fees and health care fees to rise dramatically.
Next, the interstate purchase of health insurance was banned, thus limiting people’s options, which led to skyrocketing healthcare policies with lesser services. Additionally, they increased the number of Medicaid recipients which drove the cost of private insurance over the roof sine the hospitals and health care centers were forced to overcharge the private insurance companies in order to compensate for the unpaid percentages of the Medicaid patients. 
Lastly, they turned a blind eye towards the millions of illegals smuggling across the borders to give birth to their children and use our emergency rooms for any and every illness. When common-sense conservatives promote the closing of the open borders and install a sense of order, the left then has the chutzpah to protest and fight for “the rights of all.”

And with insurance premiums suddenly unaffordable, the drones, in their fight for healthcare for all, were able to drop their 250,000 pound bomb of Obamacare onto the heads of the citizens without it being shot back at them.

Conservatives have recently begun a campaign to enforce voters ID in order to eliminate the massive frauds of duplicate votes, illegal votes, and dead votes occurring across the country. Of course, the liberals, champions of “rights for all” pounced upon it as racists, hateful, and un-American, as though cheating, stealing, and aiding criminals is the epitome of Americanism.

The liberals haven’t stopped with anything whether with demonizing Wall Street where people invested in stocks, lambasting speculators who set prices based on supply and demand, or private jet owners who actually value their time, have meetings to attend, and had enough of endless airport lines, TSA screenings, flight delays, lost luggage, and additional airline charges for every basic necessity.

In the current debates over spending cuts, the left wishes to cut one of the only expenses which the constitution clearly defines as a federal right, the right to build a military to defend this country. Of all the trillions spent in endless federal programs such as affordable housing (which caused the entire housing market to inflate out of control) many of which are questionably constitutionally correct, this constitutional right is what the left deems too expensive and want it should amount to a significant chunk of the spending cuts.

Indeed, the liberal drones have dropped their bombs in every corner of this great nation, without a hoot to the damage caused to those hit and injured. Neither do the higher ups controlling the drones care for the condition of the fleet of drones since they have a never ending supply of college graduates and illegals lining up to join their ranks. Young people who unfortunately never had the time and brains to research what’s truly right or wrong.

As Winston Churchill had said; "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." 

This is because liberals act upon emotion rather than logic despite it often causing damage and destruction. They will follow their feelings often against the good of their country, thus flying unmanned, without a pilot or brain leading the way. Instead of seeking to build businesses thereby increasing jobs and strengthening the economy, they weaken the economy, lower the value of the dollar, and destroy the health care system.

If socialism, communism, or European style democracy is what they wish for, why don’t they just take the entire fleet and fly to the country of their choice!

Munkatch’s response to Abie Rubin’s previous article on Weprin and Yossi Gestetner

Munkatch’s opinion on Abie Rubin’s article: "Why Yossi Gestetner is correct in his op-ed regarding Weprin".

I quote: "
Taxes on items such as cigarettes are different than traffic or other ticketing...... If the politicians truly have the people’s safety in mind, then cigarettes should be outlawed just as many other dangerous substances are. Not that I support the banning of cigarettes, I simply want to point out that making money off it is wrong".

Imagine the scene: a homeless disheveled man, climbing over the railing of the Brooklyn Bridge, readying himself to finally end his life of untold misery, by simply jumping into the Hudson River. He lifts one foot over the railing and starts to lift the other, when suddenly a strong pair of hands grabs his ankle and pulls him to safety. The hands belong to a NYPD officer, who noticed this suicidal man during a routine patrol, and thus was able to save him from certain death. The cop is then hailed as a hero, and reporters are fighting over exclusive rights to interview him.

The above scenario happens all too often, and while people generally focus on the heroism of the rescuer, not much thought is given to the rescued, and his choice of abruptly ending his life.

From a moral standpoint, should a person be allowed to take his life or not? I have mixed feelings about this and neither liberals nor conservatives are consistent in their views.

The liberal viewpoint of more government will say: "we can't let him take his life, because we know better than him what's good for him". The problem with this view is that when it comes to abortions and end of life decisions, suddenly the government decides that after all, it is better to be pro-choice and have "the right to die".

The conservative viewpoint of limited government might say: "the government shouldn't be telling me what to eat, drink or smoke, I am smart enough to decide what's right and wrong for me, even if it kills me. It would therefore seem that we really should let this man end his life. Now, although this agrees with the view of pro-life, -meaning your own life, not your unborn child or sick grandfather, is this consistent with the Judeo-Christian moral values upon which this country was founded? Don't we all know that "one who saves one life is considered as if he has saved the whole word"?

Getting back to the article, should the government really outlaw cigarettes and dangerous substances? Or perhaps like alcohol, it doesn't hurt when taken in moderation. What is dangerous anyway? Who decides what is or isn't dangerous? And who are we to take away someone's right to hurt themself? Do we have an obligation to prevent pain and death? These are all questions to which I don't think there is a straightforward answer, and therefore, in my opinion, cannot be used in any argument, be it for or against restrictions on cigarette use.

It is interesting to note, that the recent death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Dr. Death, for his role in assisting suicides of more than 100 people, brought this issue somewhat to the front burner. Dr. Kevorkian was actually sentenced to 8 years in prison and prosecuted unsuccessfully 4 times. On the other hand, doctor-assisted suicide essentially became law in Oregon in 1997 and in Washington State in 2009. The practice of doctors writing prescriptions to help terminally ill patients kill themselves was upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In conclusion, perhaps that is why we tend to overtax cigarettes, as a way of finding some middle ground between these two very different perspectives.

Munkatch is a great Conservative and can be followed on twitter.

My response:

Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear and well written manner.

Conservatism values life and is therefore opposed to both abortions – which is taking another’s life, and jumping off the bridge – which is taking one’s own life. Smoking is a health issue, not a life or death issue. I know plenty of ninety year olds still smoking. If you believe – as the left does -- that you have to control the health choices one makes then it should be banned. And if you believe – as conservatives do – that one should have the ability to make their own health choices, then smoking shouldn’t be singled out with higher taxes.
Follow me on Twitter