"looming" poison vote

The Christian Science Monitor has an article (here) talking about a "looming" vote for the freshmen Republican representatives, even though the vote is "months away". The vote I'm speaking of is the raising of the national debt limit, currently hovering just below $14.3 trillion.

I imagine we can expect to see a significant build up to this story in the months to come, because it raises some very serious issues that are described as being very complicated by the author of the article and experts quoted in the article.

Now, [the freshman Republicans] face the other side of the issue: A vote against raising the debt limit means the government could run out of money. Will fiscal responsibility look so appealing if the government essentially shuts down?

Excuse me, Gail Russel Chaddock, author of the article, but did you just say that the federal government of the United States of America cannot function without going into debt? Just what kind of fiscal children do we have running the country if running the government without running up debt is automatically treated as impossible by those who are accustomed to watching the politicians work?

GOP leaders hope to frame the debt vote in a broader context of rigorous budget cutting and enhanced oversight.

Translation: the GOP establishment is going to vote to increase the country's debt, is going to pressure the freshmen representatives to vote for increasing the country's debt, and the only thing left to do is minimize the political fallout resulting from the vote. This is an issue that nearly half of the freshmen Republicans ran against in their Tea Party funded campaigns, and many specifically attacked the Democrat incumbents on their voting record on this issue.

Voting to increase the national debt limit would be political suicide for these newly elected Tea Party candidates.

And you can be sure the media, both liberal and conservative, will be all over that story. They'll bite into it and shake it around like a dog after a successful hunt, and they won't stop once the story is dead, dead, dead- they'll chew it up and digest it before they let it lie.

We’re going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations, and we have obligations on our part.

Those are the words of the esteemed John Boehner, the current and future GOP House leader. I am dismayed - but not surprised - that he insinuates fiscal responsibility is a childish quality. He treats all "obligations" of the federal government as sacrosanct, even the ones that overreach constitutional federal authority, are over funded, or are in some other way identifiable as prime cut choices, ready to be stamped USDA Select pork.

It would look very negative to the rest of the world to not vote to increase the debt limit. We might have to be late on payments to government contractors. It would be chaotic. But having such huge debts is very negative, too.

You're very right, Congressman Ron Paul. It would be chaotic to not follow the same procedures the government has been following. What you need to understand, sir, is that "having such huge debts" is much more negative than "look[ing] very negative to the rest of the world". And, really, how does having a ridiculously high national debt look positive to the rest of the world? Other than, perhaps, China, who would very much like to see the federal government indebted to it permanently?

Seriously, screw the rest of the world for now. We need to get our own House in order first.

But liberals like Stan Collender disagree.

It does make a difference if you don’t raise the debt ceiling: the government will run out of cash. Delaying payments to social security recipients or government contractors is a nonstarter. It’s the day we start to look like a third world country.

A "nonstarter"? I had to look up this term; I don't really speak "Washington insider" - I speak "American citizen". Merriam-Webster defines nonstarter as "someone or something that is not productive or effective". What is raising the debt ceiling effective at, other than kicking the can down the road and allowing out of control spending in Washington to continue?

How does the government automatically run out of cash if you don't raise the debt ceiling? I'll tell you: you don't simultaneously do the sensible thing and cut spending. Politicians and liberal "experts" like Collender aren't sensible. They live in a different culture, very far removed from normal citizens.

Washington needs to understand; maybe we do need to "look like a third world country" for a short time. We rocked the boat in the elections because the status quo needs to be shaken up. Politicians need to take this seriously, especially the ones who were voted into office to change the status quo.

Stop racking up astronomical debts with out of control spending. Stop destroying my country's future!

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

elitism doesn't work for politicians.

But President Obama and Vice President Biden didn't get that memo.

And still haven't.

By now, we should long be familiar with Obama's elitism (even though he's an empty Chicago suit) due to his openness about it. To wit:

They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I won't get into this rant again, even if being called a racist, ignorant, uneducated, armed religious freak goes way over the top, even for a politician.

People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so rough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared.

And I won't get into this one again, even though being called a lizard-brained, scared peasant goes way over the top, even for a politician.

If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.

I really enjoy this one. Oh yes, Fearless Leader, insult your base and see where that gets you. Even Joe Biden chimed in with his "stop whining" comment.

Now, in a 60 Minutes interview, Obama's made another winning comment. He says

[leadership is] a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand.

What?

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I just have to ask if I read that correctly.

Did I read that correctly?

Obama thinks that people have lost faith in him due to an inability to understand his arguments?

I do apologize, Dear Leader, for being an ignorant, undereducated, clinging-to-guns-and-religion country bumpkin (even though I live in a metropolitan area of California) who can't understand all those big words you string together in a vain attempt to educate me on your ideology. Please, dumb it down for me even more so that I can understand your grand design.

Get the hell out of our white house. Elitist socialistic liberal mindset plus Chicago windbag equals angry intelligent voters.

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

today's democratic leadership failure

I almost could not believe the headline I read today. "You may hate us, but GOP is worse."

... That's the best you can come up with?

Seriously, if the best message you can come up with to try and sway voters to your side is "don't hate us please", there's something wrong with your ideology, or your politics, or your actions. If you cannot point to your ideology, platform, or campaign promises because there is too much of a stigma on them for failing worse than any other platform in the history of the United States, just step down.

This isn't just my opinion. This is the majority of Americans' opinions.

A Rasmussen poll in August shows that Congress' approval rating is 16%.

Sixteen percent!

That earns them a Disapproval Rating of 84%. Vote the bums out!

In May of this year, Rasmussen conducted a poll asking voters if a random selection from the phone book would perform better in Congress than those presently in office. Care to take a guess as to what the response was?

61% of voters responded "yes" or "maybe", with 38% dissenting.

If 61% of voters think there's an even chance that a random person, with unknown temperament, unknown morals, unknown religion, unknown education, unknown political affiliation, unknown ideology, unknown sympathies, unknown agenda, can do a better job than the politicians currently in power there's something very, very wrong.

Vote the arrogant elitists out of office! They work for us! They should be afraid of the people, the people should not be afraid of the government. Send them the message-

DON'T TREAD ON ME!

Rasmussen's Congressional Performance
Rasmussen's Phone Book Survey

9/11 mosque

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I'd just like to quote a piece of a wikipedia article on the Cordoba House. As a preface, immediately before this piece of the article, it was shown that every poll demonstrates the huge opposition Americans have towards allowing the mosque to be built 2 blocks away from the 9/11 attack.

Notably, opposition to the location of the project at the proposed site does not always entail opposition to a recognition of the developers' legal right to locate the project at the proposed site. The Quinniapac University poll of New York State residents released August 31, 2010 notes "By a 54 - 40 percent majority, voters agree 'that because of American freedom of religion, Muslims have the right to build the mosque near Ground Zero,'.". A Fox News national poll taken August 10–11, 2010 found that 61% felt that the project developers had a right to build a mosque there (a majority of Democrats (63-32%), Republicans (57-36%), and Independents (69-29%).

Hear that, elitist liberal mainstream media?

WE'RE NOT THE BIGOTED, RACIST, ANTI-MUSLIMS YOU THINK WE ARE.

We know that Muslims have a constitutional right to worship their religion. But they should take our sensibilities into account.

To use the other largest attack on American soil in the past century as an example, the Japanese have not pushed to create a Japanese cultural center or Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor, trying to promote community and understanding and tolerance (and all those other euphemisms that the faces of radical Islam spout when defending their cause), even though Japan is one of the closest allies of the United States and we've gone so far as to create artworks about the nobility of the Japanese warriors who fought against us. I'm sure there are Japanese cultural centers or equivalent elsewhere in the nation, but good sense was exercised in the placement of their construction and they have not been build near the site of our national tragedy.

Yes, Muslims have the right to worship in our country. No, they should not construct a Muslim place of worship 2 blocks away from the site of the 9/11 tragedy, even if they use the term "community center" to describe it. Have some respect for the honored, innocent fallen.

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

as part of my effort to post more...

... I'm going to try to post more personal topics than political topics. Politics is exceptionally irritating and draining, for me.

Politics is such a torment that I advise everyone I love not to mix with it. -Thomas Jefferson

The system is so broken, and intentionally so, and yet most people don't see that they're simply being divisive (I do NOT use the word in the traditional media usage) to maintain power.

But today is a political topic. Unfortunately- in more than one sense.

Firearm ownership in America has become highly politicized, and it really shouldn't be. All of this talk of "interpreting the Second Amendment" and how pro-firearm people are interpreting it incorrectly is just bunk. There are no interpretations possible other than the plain text that is written, especially if you take any time to read anything that the founding fathers of the nation wrote about it. No free citizen of the United States of America shall be prevented from owning a firearm.

The key word there is "free". If you're a criminal, sorry, your right to arm yourself is gone. Mentally ill and hospitalized? No longer "free".

And, really, that's what this "debate" centers on. One side cries out, "Violent crime is on the rise!" While I reply, "And you've helped quite enough, thank you." By demonizing and stereotyping gun owners and anyone who is pro-second amendment as violent nutballs (and they've done a damn good job of it), it has become commonplace in my experience for many people to react negatively to anyone who owns a firearm and so much as mentions it in passing. This leads to a reduced amount of firearm owners and leads to increased crime.

Proof? The seven lowest crime states in America are Right To Carry states, meaning that their state laws provide for what I stated above- free citizens have the right to arm themselves. 24 states have adopted "shall issue" laws for gun permits for citizens since the violent crime peak of 1991. About 90 million more legally owned firearms are in civilian hands today than in 1991, and America's murder rate has dropped to a 43 year low- dropping by 46%. The total violent crime rate in America has decreased 41%, to a 35 year low. I took a look at the preliminary UCR from the FBI, and the statistics there show that crime has dropped again from 2008-2009, across the board. As determined by John Lott and David Mustard, when concealed carry laws went into effect, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes fell by 5%, and assaults fell by 7%.

National surveys of police officers show that they support concealed handgun laws by 3 to 1.

Florida has issued more than 1.7 million permits, more than any other state, and has revoked only 167, or 0.01% due to firearms related crimes by the citizens carrying permits.

Catch that? 0.01% of people who receive gun carry permits (in Florida, at least) commit crimes relating to their firearms. 0.01%. 0.01%! One hundreth of one percent!

Firearms used in crimes are used by criminals who obtain them illegally, not by law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional right to arm themselves and protect themselves from criminals.

Anti-gun laws only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens; the supposed targets of the anti-gun laws, violent criminals, are already living outside the law anyway... what makes anyone think they'll obey this one law when they ignore the rest of them?

I think I'll cut this one short today. I could fill a book with my frustrations on this one topic alone.

In any case, I'll close with this message to the politicians:

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

Sites I borrowed from to write the post:

http://www.nraila.org/
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/