A View Through the Windshield

Deletion not secession

Saturday, Oct 31, 2009

Back in 2000 Walter Williams wrote a column titled A Nation Polarized, in which he suggested that we are so divided as a nation that we might want to consider parting ways peaceably, before we find ourselves involved in a civil war once again.

I agree with Dr. Williams; but, I disagree on the terms. Why should we be the ones to leave the union? We are the union. We are the ones who still believe in individual rights and the rule of law. We are the ones who believe in the civil society and our right to keep the fruits of our labor. We are the ones who defend the right to own private property and legally defend it under the second amendment. We are the ones who have fought for equality of opportunity and have strived to ensure that those who could not provide for themselves, by no fault of their own, would be provided for. And yes, we are the ones who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

It makes absolutely no sense that those of us who defend and uphold the worlds most free society, be the ones forced to leave. No. I suggest deletion instead of secession. That is: We offer those who are hell bent on socialism, a one time offer to part ways with America. 

As Dr. Williams pointed out, dividing the country would be the most difficult part. But, unlike Dr. Williams, I don’t believe we conservatives should take the short end of the stick. Give the socialists the North East; and as far as I’m concerned, throw in Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota too.

Conservatives haven’t been the ones threatening violence. Way back in the 2008 primary, there were threats of rioting and burning if Barrack Husein Obama didn’t get the nod. What do you think will happen if he doesn’t get re-elected in 2012?

Liberals are not about to agree with or compromise to anything we conservatives suggest. They are obsessed with the fantasy of a socialist Utopian paradise, and will not stop until they succeed. So, why not start making realistic plans that will keep us from repeating the bloody tragedy that was the American Civil War?

by: Backwards boB

Why so many words?

Thursday, Oct 29, 2009

Nasty…Er, Nancy Pelosi has now come out with yet another health care bill to further endanger our national forests. This one is 1990 pages long! Hey Nancy, we’re not interested in your life story…oh wait, with her ego, that would be even longer.

But really. Why do these bills have to be so long? Especially when you consider that the original Constitution of the United States of America had only 4,440 words.

Well…I couldn’t say for sure; but, maybe it’s to guard against someone turning one of their own shitty little tactics back on them. That being: If something doesn’t have 20 pages of legal explanations for every paragraph and you don’t like what it says, you change the meaning to suite your own needs (You know, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is, is’”) and then get the Supreme Court to back you up on it.

Insurance against interpretive snags isn’t the only reason for the incredible amount of paper used to write these bills. There are laws that have to be ammended and changes to the IRS codes that have to be made to support this attack on our freedom. And I’m sure those things require an enormous amount of legal squirming to accomplish.

Something else needs to be taken into account. These criminals do not want this bill to be repealed, even if they find themselves thrown out of office when it’s all said and done. I’d bet my old alcoholic aunt Betty’s whiskey that there are a few hundred pages devoted to making it next to impossible to undue this crap once it gets implemented.

Yup, I’m guessin’ that we’re going to have one hell of a fight trying to stop this thing and another trying to repeal it if it goes through.

These socialist bastards, that call themselves Democrats, aren’t stupid. Evil, yes. Stupid, no.

by: Backwards boB

Email sent to Sen. Risch

Thursday, Oct 29, 2009

I was invited to participate in a telephone town hall meeting with Sen. Risch (Idaho), held last night. The phone call didn’t come until the meeting had been going on for a while and I did not get a chance to ask any of my questions.

I will tell you this much, I was not impressed by what I heard. The good senator sounded more like someone trying to please everyone than a politician who has taken a firm stance on the issues (big surprise!)

Here is the email I sent to Sen. Risch this morning:

Dear Senator Risch

First, I would like to thank you for inviting me to participate in your telephone town hall meeting on Thursday, Oct 29.

I did not get a chance to ask you my questions; since, the phone call linking me to your meeting did not come until late in the event.

My questions would have been and still are: Where in the Constitution does Congress and this administration derive its authority to: 1) own or manage private sector banks? 2) own or manage private sector car companies? 3) set the salaries for and fire employees of any private sector businesses? 4) force American citizens to buy any product or service, insurance policy or otherwise?

Please keep in mind, that any rationally  thinking person understands that when the Constitution addresses commerce, it means the trade of goods and services. If there is any question about this, it is even further defined in the federalist papers (indeed, whenever the word commercial or commerce is brought up, it strictly relates to the trade of goods or services.) Thus: the “commerce clause” cannot be used to justify these actions

The General welfare clause states very clearly, that it applies strictly (and only) to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. This clearly eliminates the “general welfare clause” as authority to take these extreme actions.

Keeping these last 2 paragraphs in mind, (and they certainly are not distortions of fact) I would like to hear your answers to my questions. (As a matter of fact, I would like the President and all of Congress to answer these questions.)

Please, if you only intend to reply with a form letter telling me how much you do for the State of Idaho, don’t send anything at all.

If we cease to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as the law of the land, we can no longer call ourselves a nation of free people; we will have moved from a nation governed by law to a nation governed by men.

Thank you,

Robert Williams     

I won’t go into attack mode at this time. I’ll wait and see what kind of a response I get before I get all snarky with him (its only fair); but, my expectations aren’t real high.

by: Backwards boB

Net neutrality rule

Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009

At first glance, the “Net neutrality rule” seems like one of those laws that strives to insure Internet access to everyone; but, does the federal government have any authority over the Internet in the first place? And, why did they try to sneak it through on the Stimulus Bill? 

The government is saying they want to make sure that Internet service providers (ISPs) do not block certain content based on the amount of revenue it generates. That sounds noble, right? After all, why should you get booted off the net in the middle of searching for a new car, while some porn site stays up because they pay more for their service than you? That’s the hook the government wants to get you with; but, there’s more to this than helping you compete with porn sites.

Over the past several years, the msm has failed to deliver important, unslanted news and, that’s just a fact. But, others have stepped up to the plate to supply that need in the form of blogs on the Internet. As more and more people turn to web blogs (citizen journalists) to get information, the blogs have naturally become more sophisticated and have had to turn to services that could provide the needed bandwidth to keep up with the demand. Services like Wordpress.org, godaddy.com, BlueHost.com, and many others, supply domain names as well as manage web sites and provide the needed bandwidth for bloggers, and generate a lot of revenue for the ISPs. 

This is the point where I see the danger of “Net neutrality” becoming another tool of the government to limit our access to information and freedom of speech. Let’s face it, our government has a track record of passing  laws that they say will make life more equal; but in the end, turn out to either cost us more in taxes or limit our freedoms. 

Any time I hear the government use terms like “fairness” or “neutrality”, I start to get very suspicious. Shouldn’t you?

by: Backwards boB

Are we now living under a dictatorship?

Thursday, Oct 22, 2009

Fox news has posted a story online, that pay czar Kenneth Feinberg has made government policy to set pay caps on certain industry execs, without the approval of the president or congress.

The first 4 paragraphs of this article shows the total disregard that this administration has for our constitution and its intention for a system of checks and balances, not to mention the illegality of the federal government running private businesses. Take a look.

White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president’s approval before making his decision. 

The Treasury Department is expected to formally announce in the next few days a plan to slash annual salaries by about 90 percent from last year for the 25 highest-paid executives at the seven companies that received the most from the Wall Street bailout. Total compensation for the top executives at the firms would decline, on average, by about 50 percent. 

The sweeping decision, though, came from Feinberg and not from President Obama. 

One official told Fox News that Feinberg from the start had the independent authority to work with companies and make such a call. Obama was never required to sign off before final decisions were made.           

The role of the presidential advisor has been around since George Washington appointed a presidential secretary even though the constitution did not authorized one. However, since presidential advisers are not accountable to congress or the people, it is understandable that they do not have policy making privileges.

It is also a fact, that the whole of the federal government does not have the right to regulate wages on anyone; but, it’s getting very clear that Barrack Obama sees himself as a dictatorial ruler, rather than President of the United States of America. This has to stop and it has to stop now. This government has gone completely out of control and we are now in the position of having absolutely no representation what so ever.

I remember reading a quote from one of our founding fathers, a long time ago, (I could not find the quote, but I seem to remember that it was said by Thomas Jefferson) so I’ll paraphrase it: There will come a time when our government stops serving the people and starts serving itself. When this happens, we will have to take our country back starting at the county level.

I truly believe that we are now living under a dictatorship and we now have to start fighting like hell to get our representative republic back on track. It’s not going to be easy, and the only way I see any chance of success is to start from the bottom up, just as our forefathers did.

As the lyrics in the song “Tobacco Road” by  The Nashville Teens say,”Tear it down. Start all over again.”

I am not advocating a violent overthrow of anything, I am just saying: We have to hit the reset button and we have to hit it now. 

by: Backwards boB  

Remember: Keep an eye on that left hand too.

Wednesday, Oct 21,2009

Faux President Obama has been characterized as someone who, absolutely, can’t take criticism. But, is he really so thin skinned that he goes off on a rage if he doesn’t have all the media and everyone else on board with his agenda?

I’ve noticed a pattern with the White House’s attacks on conservative news organizations, conservative talkers, and various industry heads. They don’t seem to attack them in bulk, but, choose to single one out at a time. If you’ve noticed, first they targeted the Tea Party protesters. After the Tea Partiers, they seemed to focus on the insurance companies, then, out of the clear, they go after Rush. Then, Rush seems to drop off their radar and Glenn Beck is the focus. Glenn, kind of cools off and they go back to attacking the insurance companies. A couple of days later, the whole Fox news organization is under attack. And, if you look at this cycle closely, there are a lot of targets in between that seem to make up a pattern.

To me, this seems way too eratic for this to be the practicing of Sahl Alinsky’s rules for radicals: ”RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

Remember, I said before: Don’t just watch what the left’s right hand is doing, keep an eye on what their left hand is doing too. I can’t say for sure that this is the tactic this administration has chosen to use; but, it sure seems like they’ve been furiously waving that right hand around since the very beginning.

Bottom line here is this: Limbaugh, Beck, Fox news, doctors, and insurance companies are all grown-ups now. They can take care of themselves if they choose to fight back. Yes, we should be supporting all of these people. But, we conservatives should be watching that left hand as well as the right; because, in the end, we are the ones who are going to ultimately get the biggest screwing.

by: Backwards boB

The left knows no limit to Deceit

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2009

Here is a glaring example of how the left knows no limit to defrauding the public, in order to further their agenda.

A group known as the yes men set up a press conference, claiming to be from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to acknowledge that they had reversed their position on the Cap and Trade bill. They claim to be a group of people who pull stunts to embarrass or spoof others; but, I see a bunch of ass holes using dirty tricks and outright fraud, to do as much damage to their political opponents on the right, as possible.

You be the judge.

BTW, doesn’t the guy look like he could be Rahm Emanuel’s brother? Or, is it just me?

by: Backwards boB

News outlets should have tax free status. Huh?

Tuesday, Oct 20, 2009

Breitbart has posted a story about a couple of academia’s more profound idiots that have done a study and concluded that journalism is in dire need of salvation. It’s a short article and you can read it here. 

I hate to break the news to these two morons, but journalism is doing pretty good at Breitbart, Fox news, Michelle Malkin, and a few others who are willing to do more than repeat the progressive liberal mantras. Yeah, yeah. I know their all just right wing political hacks, especially Fox news. Right. 

Just like any other liberal, if you tied the raw truth around these two idiots necks and someone pointed it out, they would say, “oh that? never mind that, it doesn’t exist.”

by: Backwards boB

Bo Snerdley’s critique on The Rush Limbaugh Show

Monday, Oct 19, 2009

When I decided to start this blog, I made a conscious decision not to use material found on other blogger’s web sites or from any of the popular radio and TV shows unless I felt it was important. This is one of those times, that I think something needs to be given as much exposure as possible.

On Friday, Oct 16th, James Golden who is Rush’s program observer and call screener, demanded that Rush give him some air time (as the official Obama criticizer) to address what happened with Limbaugh’s chance to be a part of a team bidding for the St. Louis Rams. Here it is.

by: Backwards boB

You can’t say you haven’t been warned!

Monday, Oct 19, 2009

Just about all of us on the right have been trying to warn people that if government heath care goes through, it will only be a matter of time until we are all told what kind of lifestyle we can have. We’ve also been trying to explain that ”cheaper health care” for all, is: one of the biggest lies the left has concocted since the New Deal. With a price tag of $10 trillion over the next 10 years, only those that believe in the tooth fairy would go for that. (Democrats?)

An article  in the Washington Post on Friday Oct, 16, by David S. Hilzrath, lays out how a loophole in Sen. Max Bacus’ health care bill will allow the government to use wellness initiatives (already used by some companies) to force those who have unhealthy lifestyle practices into paying higher premiums for thier medical insurance policies.

Translation: If you’re over weight or you smoke, you’re going to pay more than everyone who buckles and lives the way the government mandates you should.

Even the purple people at SEIU are against this; but, my take on this is that the libs would like nothing better than to have you not buy insurance and just pay the penalty until you do get sick, (actually cheaper than paying for the inflated cost of your unwellness policy.) This would speed the process of bankrupting the insurance companies and force single payer, complete government run health care, on us all.

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that if someone is going to foot the bill for your health care costs, they are also going to have a vested interest in what you eat, drink, smoke, and how you play and how hard you play.

by: Backwards boB