Who Put These IDIOTS In Charge?

Oh, that's right..... Democrats.

What kind if idiotic crap is this:

Obama Admin. Declares 'The End of Favoring Motorized Transportation'

“Today, I want to announce a sea change,......This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

Sooooo, we're now going to finance walking and biking trails at the same priority as the federal highways? WTF does he mean?

“The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments,” said LaHood's policy statement.

“Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes,” it said. (emphasis added.)

Apparently. We are doomed.

h/t FoxNation

Lets Give the IRS More Authority, Shall We?

I wonder if they've taken delivery of their new toys yet?

Income
Rendition
Services

IRS to Enforce Health Reform

(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms. The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”
/snip
The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.
Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

Yeah baby..Lets give the IRS more authority and better shotguns.

No One Questions Our Authority

CNSNews.com asked members of Congress where the Constitution gave them the authority to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. They had a variety of answers.

Watch the video here.

I Was Right

I do enjoy it when someone infinitely smarter than I am explains why I'm right about something.
You notice from the responses by the dhimmis, that they think we're arrogant for questioning their auhority to bypass Constitutional limitations.

IMAO, its the dhimmis who are the arrogant ones, for questioning why we question them.

Royalty-monarchs-serfs-peasants
rail-tar-feathers

From the Patriot Post/Federalist Digest
God Bless Mark Alexander

Government & Politics
A Serious Question

We have known for many years that Democrats view the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals, not as something to be revered or upheld -- despite their repeated oaths to do just that.

And as Mark Alexander warned last week, our Constitution is on life support.

More evidence of the trauma inflicted by our elected "representatives" surfaced this week when CNSNews.com asked the only truly relevant question in the health care debate: Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected:
CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

Though questions concerning constitutional authority are finally being asked inside the Beltway, they have been asked with ever-louder voices across the nation since Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that debate. Of course, since the last election, the national debate chorus has become much more unified.

For example, in The Patriot's home state of Tennessee (which Al Gore claims as "home" but which gave its electoral votes to Bush, twice, and then to McCain), there is a 10th Amendment battle underway, and not a minute too soon.

State Republicans are organizing a state sovereignty campaign in opposition to the federal government's abuse of states' rights. This week, a legislative committee approved a motion to invite representatives from the legislatures of the other 49 states to join a "working group ... to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers."

Can you say, "Constitutional Convention"?

Predictably, Obama's state cadre of Democrat sycophants are huffing and puffing. State Democrat Chairman Chip Forrester says, "It's unfortunate that Republican members of the state Legislature have jumped on this crazy train. This is nothing short of lunacy. The Tea Party organizers and their ultra-right wing cronies began this ridiculous issue to disrupt civil debate about how to move this state and nation forward. I hope they are not suggesting we fight another Civil War."

No, we should give the Convention a chance before taking up arms. And if it comes to the latter, I suggest Mr. Forrester say goodbye to the sun and slither down a very deep hole..

Perfect example of Progressiveism - Are you using your liver?

If our readers don't know what the political philosophy of Progressiveism is or how it is antithetical to democracy, here is the perfect example:

“We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

Remember, Cass Sunstein is President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Regulation Czar (where ARE CZARS mentioned in the Consti...Never mind). He wants to nudge people through regulations, not democratic debate. Because the government knows best, he feels that it would be much more efficient to harvest organs without explicit consent. You can always "opt out."

Mrs. Cargosquid has been involved in the organ transplant field for over 20 years. The ethics debates are endless. And throughout the entire history of American transplant science, the idea of explicit consent has been the rule. Because you are a sovereign citizen, not a resource.

Other countries, such as France, use presumed consent rule, apparently, without a problem. However, the culture and politics in other countries do not put such an emphasis on individual liberty as we do. China has been known to use prisoners as resources. How progressive.

However one feels about this idea, the choice of explicit consent or presumed consent should be done in an open debate, in Congress or State legislature, with input from medical experts, ethics experts, and constituents.

Progressives don't actually like input from the masses. They know what's best for you:

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

Mandated Choice? Excuse me? I wonder, has Cass Sunstein signed HIS organ donor card?


h/t Pundette at Hot Air

Say Goodbye to Your Employer Healthcare Benefits

The longer they talk, the more likely it is some of the truth will come out.

Dems confess hopes to eliminate private healthcare

Yet another liberal lawmaker on Capitol Hill has acknowledged that the public option healthcare proposal being promoted by President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill is a "Trojan horse" for a single-payer socialized healthcare system.

Earlier this summer, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) told CNSNews.com that he agrees with President Obama that a single-payer healthcare system has worked well in some countries. Congressman Frank reportedly cited Scandinavia as an example. Frank was confronted at the National Press Club last week by the group Single Payer Action, which asked him why a single-payer system was off the table. "Apparently because we don't have the votes. I wish it weren't. I'm all for it. I'm a big sponsor," he admitted. Frank is referring to his support for H.R. 676, The United States National Health Care Act, which has 85 congressional co-sponsors. He says trying to push a single-payer bill through Congress before getting a public option approved would be "suicidal."

Some Light Summer Reading: Doing the job that CERTAIN Americans won't do.

If anyone is interested, here is the Cap Your Trade bill The Pile Of Shit.
The section on Housing starts on page 297: Title II Energy Efficiency. Be the first on your block to read it!

A round up of opinions on just one horrible mandate of the bill: Mandatory energy audits because of a National building code that OVERRIDES state and local codes. Now, how did the federal government get the power to do that? States that don't bend over and comply with the big bosses in DC won't get their share of the "sugar." "Sugar" that we don't have and that the states have been able to live without until now.

From a fellow Virginian: Blake Yount at the Norfolk Examiner: (emphasis mine)

"...the bill stipulates that state codes match the national codes, or the said state codes will be nullified, and states will lose federal funding and carbon allowances. Remember, in this new world of cap and trade, the federal government has the authority to "allow" businesses within a state or community to conduct operations and emit carbon. Thus, millions of private sector jobs would be politicized under cap and trade. This type of politicization can only be found throughout history in societies governed by tyrants."

Real Estate Blog:

"The bill forces sellers to have an energy inspection prior to being able to sell their home. Windows, appliances and insulation will have to be inspected and approved by a government inspector and modifications would have to be made for compliance before you can close the sale."

A good summary of some provisions at CNSNews:

"The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide."

John Boehner gives us his take on this "pile of shit."

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

I can't seem to find the authorization for these powers that Congress is seizing for themselves anywhere in my copy of the Constitution. Where in that document does it allow the Federal Government to pick and choose which industries fail and which prosper?(Yes, I know. No industries will prosper.)

DC should not be allowed to run roughshod over the rights of the states and the people. The States should not be subservient to the federal government except where that is specifically described in the Constitution.

When states stop being whores for our tax money, perhaps we might regain some freedom.

Casualties in the War on Illegal Immigration

Congressman Reprimands Father of Teen Killed by Drunk-Driving Illegal Alien for Calling Criminal Aliens 'Banditos' -
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer (CNSNews.com) –

In emotional testimony before a House joint panel this week, a Virginia man recalled the death of his teenage daughter in 2007 – a death caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and who had been arrested twice before the crime, but was not deported.

“Two years ago this week, my 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, and her best friend Allison were killed as they were sitting at in intersection waiting for a red light to change,” Ray Tranchant said, as friends placed a photograph of Tessa Tranchant on an easel behind him. Since his daughter’s death, Tranchant, a professor from VIrginia Beach, has become an advocate for the enforcement of immigration law.

On Thursday, as Tranchant applauded local law enforcement in Virginia for its increased efforts to work with federal immigration authorities since his daughter’s death, he referred to individuals listed on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s database of illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds as “banditos.”

That comment drew a rebuff from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).“Mr. Tranchant, can I share with you as the father of two daughters, I thank you for bringing your testimony here, but I suggest to you that if we refer to people as banditos, as you referred to them in your testimony, it does not help to solve the problem,” Gutierrez said.

To Comrade Gutierrez:
You sanctimonious self-rightous pompous a$$hole, YOU and your comrades in the Politboro are the ones responsible for the death of that man's daughter.

YOU and your comrades have the blood of American citizens on YOUR HANDS for not enforcing the immigration laws.

That man deserves as much respect as any Gold Star parent. His daughter was KIA by an illegal combatant on American soil.

Where is your sense of decency, man? Where is your compassion? You're an a$$hole.

I can assure you if it were MY daughter, "bandito" would be the mildest term you'd hear me use.