Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Rush Limbaugh Confirms that Democrats and Liberals hate America

Rush Limbaugh gave a powerful monologue on how Democrats (and liberals) genuinely hate America, including our history and the institutions that made this country what it is today.  As Rush Limbaugh said today:
Do you realize that the political arguments that we're having in this country are not just between two competing ideologies.  They're between people who love the United States of America and people who don't.  You might even go further and say it's not just people who don't love the country. It's people who have an active hate for it.

I also wish that this were not the case.  I wish everyone in America loved the institutions that made America great, especially the US Constitution and liberty in general.  Sadly, that is not so.  A large number of Americans sadly reject our US Constitution and want to attack the liberty that brought about the highest standard of living anywhere in the world.  Many Americans have fallen prey to ideologies that are alien to our culture--such as socialism and fascism.  Since these individuals who hate America vote, their sentiments are reflected in the politicians that they elect. There is a way forward, however.  As Rush Limbaugh explained today:
"If I could change one thing, it would be to change the fact that so many people born in this country hate it.  If we could change that, we would eliminate 90% of the problems politically that we have."

I couldn't say it better myself.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff opposes free speech

In a recent online article on FoxNews.com, it exposes the collusion between liberal reporters in their attempt to spread propaganda to millions of Americans.  One rather remarkable post on one of these litservs was a question by radical UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff, in which he asked, “I hate to open this can of worms, but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?"   It is obvious that a man like Mr. Zasloff does not believe in free speech or the limitations placed on the government by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  (Further, as the Founders ponted out, since Congress has not been granted the power to censor television stations, it simply cannot do this—even if the First Amendment had not been created.  I decided to write to this “professor.”  Here is the text of my written comments:

Mr. Zasloff,
I read on the internet that you wrote that the government should be able to shut down Fox.  You have a lot of degrees, but apparently you have never heard of the First Amendment.  Perhaps you believe that the only viewpoint that is worthy of free speech is the socialist-collectivist-altruist one.  As an alumni of UCLA, I am embarrassed that a "professor" would not understand how the First Amendment operates. 

UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff opposes free speech

In a recent online article on FoxNews.com, it exposes the collusion between liberal reporters in their attempt to spread propaganda to millions of Americans.  One rather remarkable post on one of these litservs was a question by radical UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff, in which he asked, “"I hate to open this can of worms, but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?"   It is obvious that a man like Mr. Zasloff does not believe in free speech or the limitations placed on the government by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  (Further, as the Founders ponted out, since Congress has not been granted the power to censor television stations, it simply cannot do this—even if the First Amendment had not been created.  I decided to write to this “professor.”  Here is the text of my written comments:

Mr. Zasloff,
I read on the internet that you wrote that the government should be able to shut down Fox.  You have a lot of degrees, but apparently you have never heard of the First Amendment.  Perhaps you believe that the only viewpoint that is worthy of free speech is the socialist-collectivist-altruist one.  As an alumni of UCLA, I am embarrassed that a "professor" would not understand how the First Amendment operates. 

Thursday, July 15, 2010

US Senator Barbara Boxer wants to raise electricity prices dramatically. Let her run on this platform if that is her passion.

Democrat US Senator Barbara Boxer has spent the last several years championing the policy of dramatically raising our electricity prices.  Considering that this is one of her passions, why doesn’t she run on this policy?  She should say, quite clearly, in a television ad, that it is her goal to cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.”  Let’s see how many votes she will get then.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Donald Berwick, a Marxist, will now control your health care decisions.

President Obama nominated Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid.  The US Senate did not schedule any hearings on this man.  Since the US Senate will be in recess, Obama will be making a recess appointment of this man.   Donald Berwick is the absolute worst person to be in charge of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).  This is a man who believes that the government should be in control of health care and must ration care.  He praised the NHS health care system in the UK, which rations care.  He condemns capitalism and the American system of providing health care.  Instead, he praises, and indeed says that he “romanticizes” the fact that the UK system rations health care through the iron fist of its bureaucracies.  He is an idiot.  He is not an intellectual.  He is not compassionate.    He is a man without any merit who believes that his decisions should override those of millions of individuals arranging their health care decisions themselves. 

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Nancy Pelosi believes paying non-workers increases net employment. Seriously!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that taking money from individuals who are working and redistributing it to pay those who are not employed will somehow create more jobs.  She really said this!   Is she working for the Onion?  How does this work in practice?  A logical person would say that this would make the productive worker poorer (and sacrifice his liberty) while the non-worker will receive an unearned benefit precisely because he does not work.  Hence, the worker who creates wealth gets punished, while the non-worker gets rewarded.  Hmm, could this be a pattern with the Democrat Party?  Could it be that they want to only provide support to those who are parasites?