A View Through the Windshield

Found in Comments to: Health Care Mandate Sparks Constitutional Debate (foxnews.com)

by bsa2000 [Sep 29, 2009 10:15:41 PM]

Getting Our Priorities Straight

Monday, Sept 28, 2009

I am not one who was completely in the tank for George W. Bush; but, I did support his decision to put a couple of size XXXXX large G.I. boot prints right in the middle of Islam (Iraq and Afghanistan). Bush was coherent enough to understand that the only 2 things radical Islam understands is victory or defeat. Even though, Bush made mistakes (and admitted doing so), he clearly made the troops and the war effort his highest priority; unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Barrack Obama.

In a video teleconferenced interview with CBS reporter David Martin that aired Sunday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal revealed that he had only talked with the President one time since taking command of the Afghan war. That’s only one time in 70 days. This is not only astonishing, it is a profound act of dereliction of duty, on the part of the President; considering, Gen. McChrystal has previously warned that if we do not get more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, we run a very high risk of losing that war. 

If we look at Obama’s constant campaigning, his rush to get the failed bailout done, his obsession to get a government mandated health care system put in place, the number of vacations and extravagant dates with his wife, add the fact that he now plans to rush off to Denmark to convince the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2012 games in Chicago, and then through the fact that he doesn’t seem to think it’s important to communicate with his top General, we have a very disturbing picture. In fact, we have a picture of a man that considers having the Olympic games in his home town,  more important than taking the time to decide whether or not to send reinforcements for our fighting men and women, engaged in combat.

This issue isn’t about executive inexperience. It’s about a cold narcissistic S.O.B. driven by power. It’s about a political party that is once again proving their total disdain for our military. It’s about people who will do anything to forward their socialist agenda, even at the expense of human lives.

by: Backwards boB

Crop Destruction as a Tool of War

Sept 24, 2009

When most of us think of the history of crop destruction as a form of warfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the story of the Romans salting the fields of Carthage, circa 146 A.D. (many historians consider this a myth); or, for you foaming at the mouth liberals, the use of agent orange in Vietnam.

The truth is: The use of crop destruction as a tool of warfare dates back as early as the 12th century B.C. when the Israelites destroyed Philistine crops to weaken the civilian population and erode support for their defending army. The ancient Greeks knew this tactic also and the Athenians used it during the Peloponnesian war (431 to 404 B.C.). Crop destruction was even used here in the United States as evidenced by some 1 million acres of farm land laid to waste by General William Sherman’s army, in his famous March to the Sea (1864-1865) during the civil war.

So, what am I getting at? I am getting at this (and it is a very big ”this”): Why is the federal government forcing farmers, in California’s San Juaquin Valley, to let thousands of some of the world’s most fertile farm land go fallow? To save a 2 in. fish from extinction? Bull shit. That’s right I said, “Bull shit.”

The environmentalists claim that the delta river smelt is vital to the food chain; because, it feeds the bird population and larger fish. Well, the last time I checked, birds and fish also feed on insects. And, if you think there is a shortage of insects, you haven’t been outside in a really long time.

I could, also, get into the fact that California has been creating its own drought for years by draining their man made lakes and reservoirs every spring; but, for the sake of brevity I’ll leave that alone for now.

So, is the government cow towing to the radical eco-terrorists, or are they using an age old warfare tactic to make the public more submissive? Judging by what this radical socialist President has already done and what he is trying to force on the American people, I have to go with the later. Whatever the answer is, I believe, the people of California have a moral right to break the locks on the head gates and fire up the pumps to irrigate their land. People are more important than a 2 in. fish, that more than likely thrives in other places, but goes by a different name. 

Come on, Arnold, quit being such a “girly man”  and send the California National Guard down there and get the job done. You can’t get anymore screwed over by your “buddy” Barrack, than you already are.

by: Backwards boB

What Can I Say?

Sept 23, 2009

After listening to Obama’s United Nations screech, it has taken me all day to figure out how to put into words how I feel about this, wanna be leader of the world (Barrack Hussein Obama). In the end, I’ve decided that if I say what I think should be said, I will be rousted out of my bed by the secret police sometime very early in the morning. So, instead, I will just ask some questions.

What do you think of your president now, Mr. and Mrs. moderate Democrat?

What do you think of Barrack Obama now, all you members of labor unions, as you stand in the unemployment line?

How good a job do you recent college grads think your dear leader is doing, since you can’t find a job to save your life?

How about you black folks? Has there been any change in your neighborhoods, or are the hoods still threatening your neighbors?

What about you Republicans that couldn’t stomach McCain? Is Obama worth the chance you took?

And you liberal Jewish people, how do you feel now that this hater of your people has thrown Israel under the bus with “his typical white grandmother?”

Let’s not forget the mothers and fathers of our fighting men and women. We have to know how they feel about a president that can’t decide whether he should send these kids the support they need to do the most difficult job there is and survive. 

Yes indeed, America, how do we feel about a man sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that not only spits on that document, but stands up in front of the world’s worst oppressors, dictators, and tyrants and says what a crappy, mean spirited country we are.

Sleep good, America. Your going to need all the rest you can get.

by: Backwards boB

Are We Going to Get Sucker Punched?

Tuesday Sept 22, 2009

I keep hearing people say about health care reform, “we need to slow down and we’re trying to do too much too fast.” These little slogans do sound moderate and non combative; but, I would like to know just what the hell these remarks are supposed to mean. Should we wait another year, maybe two years before we screw up the best health care system in the world? Another thing in the health care argument, that is coming through loud and clear is: Obama and his Obamabot minions’ asinine refusal to consider tort reform and lifting the interstate restrictions on health insurance providers.

Yeah, yeah, Obama wants total control of the U.S. economy and ultimately of you and me; but, there has to be another step in the procedure for him to gain this control. With a little fine tuning, he knows he can have enough support in the House and Senate to ram mandated health care down our throats, but this still isn’t enough. Maybe, we should start to listen to those who are saying, “Don’t just watch what his right hand is doing; watch what his left hand is doing too.”

You might say, “OK, but Obama is keeping his left hand in his pocket and we can’t see what he’s up to with it.” This might not be so true. Obama may be an accomplished street hustler but he is not a very good politician. He’s tipped his hand too early several times and the result was tea party protests all over the country and well over a million people showing up on his front lawn to tell him, “no, we don’t want government health care.” And, he’s tipped his hand again with amnesty. He went on national TV and told America his health care plan won’t cover illegal aliens; but, he turned right around and told the Hispanic Caucus that the solution is to make the illegal aliens, legal.

If Obama succeeds in getting amnesty, the question then becomes: are 12 milli0n more democrat votes enough to offset the moderates on the left that he is losing? Maybe, but that could be a close count. So, what else does the dear leader have in that left hand? How about those rainbow people? Haven’t they been surprisingly quiet? Yes, I’m talking about Gays and Lesbians. Just like the illegal aliens, the homosexuals know, with a little tweak here and a little tweak there, they get what they’ve wanted all along: Legally recognized marriage and health care benefits for their partners in every state.  And, this could be enough for Obama to maintain his agenda.

We have to watch both hands, or we’re going to get sucker punched before we know it.

Now you say, ”OK Backwards, you’ve said what might be in the left hand, but you haven’t given any suggestions on how to block this socialist take over.” I’ll do that next.

by: Backwards boB

Blocking That Sucker Punch

Tuesday Sept 22, 2009 

As I said before, Barrack Obama is an accomplished street hustler but not a very good politician. He can’t sell shit wrapped up like candy the way Bill Clinton could. He proved this during his Sunday TV blitz this weekend, especially while stumbling and stuttering through an answer to George Stephanopoulos’ question about whether health care reform was a tax or not.

This little misstep on the dear leader’s part actually gives us, (who are against government run health care) some much needed ammunition. Here is how: If mandated health insurance isn’t a tax (as the chosen one insists) it becomes an extra constitutional requirement for legal citizenship status.

Even if Barrack Obama changes direction and calls it a tax, mandated health care insurance can still be proven unconstitutional by nature of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This section lists the enumerated and limited powers of the federal government; and, health care is nowhere to be found here. Also, the Constitution rebukes a federal mandate for health insurance in the 10th amendment and in Section I of the 14^th Amendment. The 10th amendment reads as follows:

“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.”

This is pretty clear to me, and I suspect, to most rationally thinking people.

Section I of the 14th amendment reads as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there-of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Section I of the 14th Amendment does 2 things. 1) It establishes the only requirements to being a legal citizen of the United States: being born here or becoming a naturalized citizen. And 2) it gives the States the power to protect its citizens from unconstitutional laws. 

Obviously, this President and Congress couldn’t give a rats butt about what the Constitution says; but, we can start telling our respective State governments to step up to the plate and start passing laws that forbid the federal government from imposing unconstitutional requirements on their citizens.

Maybe, by continuing to hammer our Congressmen in Washington and taking our case to the State level, we can avoid that sucker punch Obama has planned for us.

by: Backwards boB

Amnesty for Health Care

Friday, Sept 18, 2009

Evidently,  in Barrack Obama’s twisted mind, the solution to the issue of whether illegal aliens will be covered under government run health care is: make the illegals…legal. It’s getting really hard to see which side of this jackass’s  mouth he’s talking out of .

The Washington Times quotes Obama, from a speech he gave Wednesday night to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, as saying, 

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” and ”That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. Obama also added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”             

We all knew that amnesty was going to come up again sooner or later, but the part of this quote that needs to be shoved back down Obama’s throat is the claim that the immigration system is broken. Just exactly where is it broken? Are the forms too difficult to fill out? Are there people intentionally destroying applications for legal immigration? Or, is there just a total lack, of this administration, to do anything to stem the tide of illegals entering our country?

This is just more smoke and mirrors, and what pisses me off the most, is: Obama still thinks we are swallowing this crap. 

by: Backwards boB

Are the Wheels Coming off of Obama’s Crap Wagon?

Sept 14, 2009

The MSM is reporting a slight bump in Obama’s poll numbers as a result of his, unprecedented address to both houses of Congress. These numbers are also reflected in several polls by respected pollsters; not to mention, the multitude of Obama lap dogs, who would claim that BHO still had an approval rating well over 50%, even after being convicted of Bar-B-Queuing and eating children in the rose garden.

The President’s poll numbers are troubling if you consider recent events and the poll numbers of his and congress’ proposed socialist programs and other items.

To be fair, I chose a cross section of pollsters to give an idea of where Americans seem to stand on the important issues at hand. Here are the numbers: Obama’s Health Care Reform Bill, (does he even have one?) CBSNews (most recent) shows 52% approve-48% disapprove. You have to remember, most people want some health insurance reform, but not all want Obama’s and is very easy to see how this particular poll can be swayed. Zogby and Gallop both show Cap and Trade as: 30% support, 57% oppose, and 13% not sure. IBD/TIIP has the new proposed 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) at 73% opposed. In June 2009, Rasmussen had the GM bail out at 67% disapproved and 21% approved. Gallop shows labor unions with an approval rating of 59% in 2008 but dropping to 48% overall approval in 2009. And finally, AP-GfK has Congress job approval at 28% approve, 69% disapprove +or -3% from 9/3 to 9/8 of 09. 

Now, let’s add some more to the equation. 1) Glenn Beck’s exposure of the radicals surrounding Obama (resulting in the resignation of admitted communist Van Jones.) 2) ACORN getting filmed, not once, not twice, but three times advising filmmaker James O’Keefe and friend Hanah Giles on how to evade taxes and get public assistance housing while posing as a prostitute and her friend or pimp, (remember, BHO was an attorney for ACORN.)  3) 2 million people showing up to demonstrate against government health care, growing deficits, high taxes, and impending out of control inflation, (not counting the hundreds of other rallies held in towns all across the U.S) and 4) The growing inability of Obama to draw any sizable crowd to hear him talk about these important issues.

So, where the hell are these pollsters coming up with a positive approval rating for Obama? The answer is called targeted random sampling, and anyone who has had a statistics class knows exactly what I’m talking about.

Is it possible the wheels are starting  to come off of Obama’s crap wagon? You betcha!

by: Backwards boB

Obama Threatens to Use the Nuclear Option

Sept 11, 2009

Obama is threatening to use the reconciliation option to ram his socialized health care bill through Congress. At the same time, he’s crying big crocodile tears and using Republican obstructionism as the reason for resorting to a tool, that was intended for budget issues only, to get what he wants.

Hey Mr. Obama, every voter in America is aware of the fact that the Democrats control both houses of Congress; furthermore, they know that you do not need one single Republican vote, in order to pass a health care bill that most of us don’t want.

Why is it, Mr. President, that you keep promoting this fallacy? Is it that after government run health care proves to be nothing more than a giant power grab, you can point to the other side of the aisle and say, “hey the Republicans voted for this too?” That’s right, you don’t want to ride this horse alone, do you? All I can say is: you had better get prepared for one hell of a backlash from over 50 million people that reject the idea of unconstitutional mandated health insurance, government or Private sector.

Here’s another question for you Barry: Are you going to stick around Saturday to see how many people show up to protest your socialist dream? Or, are you going to conveniently take another, “much need break from Washington?”

Good lord, Mr. Obama, you make Bill Clinton look down right humble.  

Backwards boB

More from Dr. Garamoni

Sept 10, 2009

Another great post by Dr. Garamoni

Yesterday evening, Dr. Gregory Garamoni from Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine, emailed me another post. This one, he had posted in the WSJ and it packs just as much punch as the one I included in my post “Twisting the Constitution.”

Here is Dr. Garamoni’s email:

Bob,

FYI, I just posted this at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

There are four main fronts — moral, constitutional, economic, and pragmatic — in the war against the collection of health care reforms dubbed here as PelosiObamaReidCare (PORC).  Ms. Palin — in the philosophically bankrupt tradition of “small government” Conservatism, chooses in this article to wage war on the economic and pragmatic fronts while essentially surrendering the moral and constitutional fronts.  

Someday — sooner rather than later — I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin fight PORC by making a passionately principled appeal to the whole point behind the Constitution — the protection of individual rights — and its justification in the philosophy of individualism — the theory that individuals are ends-in-themselves; that we have the right to exist for our own sake; that no one has the right to force anyone to live for the sake of others; that we have the right to be left alone to pursue our own ends in life as long as we don’t infringe on the liberty of others to do the same; that the proper role of government is to protect our rights by legislating, adjudicating, and enforcing laws that prohibit other individuals or groups — foreign and domestic — from initiating force against us.  

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin, building on this philosophical foundation, then tell the American people in no uncertain terms that there is no “right” to health care, that there is no moral or constitutional justification for the alleged “right” to health care, that — search long and hard, but you won’t find such a right in the founding documents.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin develop this argument by telling the American people that the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness are freedoms of action, not entitlements to the outcomes of action, that our constitutionally protected rights entitle us to be free to pursue our ends in life — that is, to be free from any force or physical coercion by others — including the needy, the greedy, and the greedy-needy, and, most importantly, their vote-hungry, power-thirsty, elected officials.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin conclude this argument by telling the American people that the problem with the “right” to health care is that it would require the government to force some members of society (wealthy, doctors, business owners) to serve the health care needs of others, and by doing so, the government would violate the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those people who are forced to provide labor or money for this health care on terms dictated by the government.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin summarize this argument for the American people by stating in plain, folksy language that “a right that violates other rights ain’t right” — that the alleged “right” to health care involves a contradiction — that it must be condemned because it is illogical, immoral, and unconstitutional.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin reduce the argument for the alleged right to health care to absurdity by asking the American people if they think the right to bear arms requires the government to arm people with guns by (a) forcing gun shop owners to give guns away, (b) forcing gun shop owners to sell guns at prices and on terms dictated by the government, or (c) forcing some people to pay taxes to fund the purchase of guns for others. People have the right to buy firearms from a gun dealer, and people have the right to buy medical care from a doctor, but people do not have the right to firearms or medical care.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin further reduce the argument for the alleged right to health care to absurdity by contending although that sexual satisfaction is integral to a life of happiness, and people have the right to pursue sexual happiness with the voluntary consent of a willing partner, people do not have the right to force others to have sex with them — to rape them. Nor does anyone have the right to force other people pay taxes to fund “happy endings” with a prostitute.

I would love to see a political leader like Ms. Palin administer a coup de grâce by saying this:

“And if you demand, based on your “right to happiness,” that the government use its power to provide sexual outlets for your happiness, don’t be surprised if taxpayers tell you: 

“Go (expletive deleted) yourself!”

This is the moral high ground — plain and simple — that our political leaders need to occupy if we are ever going to win the war against government intrusion into the private health care choices of patients and doctors.

Dr. Gregory Garamoni

Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine

http://www.doctorsonstrike.com

P.S.  My fantasy fortune cookie would say this: “When you have them by the moral gonads, their hearts and minds will follow.”                

Thank you Dr. Garamoni; but, my opinion is: “When you have them by the gonads, period, squeeze them until their noses start to bleed and drag them along whether they want to follow or not.” But that’s just me.

By: Backwards boB