Rick Right Pernick

Midterms Looming: Will Republicans Stop the Budgetary Madness?

Rick Right Pernick

It’s less than two weeks until the midterm elections, and people need to be aware of our current debt situation.  It sucks.  This latest adjective comes from the National Council of Economic Advisors.   Actually, it comes from me.  But, having studied the subject intensely, I would like to add a ‘really’ at this time. So now the national debt officially ‘really sucks’.

In only one year and ten months, President Obama, and his fellow democrats in control of congress since 2007, has amassed over three trillion dollars of debt that will be passed onto future generations.  This insanity must stop!

While touting a less than expected FY 2010 deficit of just under $1.3 Trillion, the actual debt accumulated for the year was $1.65 Trillion.  This is a 1 followed by enough zeros to circle the globe twice.  OK, not really, but it still constitutes ‘a shitload’ by anyone’s standard.  Not that the Daily Discord has any standards, but, if they got some, they would agree.

So where does this large debt discrepancy come from? 

As I explained in The National Debt, Who’s Responsible, the deficit (or surplus) is a function of budgeting, not the actual debt incurred.  Also, please note: I am such a stingy fiscal conservative I even left off the question mark on my link.  Someone else can use it now.  See?  That’s how we fiscal conservative’s think—always conserving.  Since Social Security receipts are added to the budgeted revenue, but Social Security disbursements are not budgeted, the actual debt is greater than the budgeted debt.  And, in this case, bigger isn’t better.

It’s for this reason, the republican budget surpluses signed into law during the Clinton administration failed to actually reduce the total national debt.  In fact, the national debt has not shown an annual decrease since 1957.

It is my hope that republicans will seize control of congress and put an end to this unrestrained spending.  If they do win, and continue the binge spending that was present under the Bush administration and seriously accelerated under the Obama administration, their new reign in congress will be short lived.

If you go to the link, I show precisely how democrats in control of congress have incurred nearly three times the average monthly debt that republicans had incurred since January 1993.  Congressional power was split from January 2001 to January 2003 with republicans controlling the House and democrats controlling the Senate. 

Admittedly, this is not news to me, it was merely an exercise to lay out my argument that Obama’s claim he “inherited” the debt issue from Bush is at least disingenuous, at most an outright lie.  There are some who doubt my understanding of historical and current events, and so I feel the need to show the math.  If you still doubt me, do the math yourself.  The figures used in this analysis were generated at TreasuryDirect.gov

As I explained, this exercise was in no way a defense of congressional spending under republican control of congress.  The fact is, federal spending has been out of control since FDR’s New Deal. Since budget rules were changed in 1974, the debt has exploded. This irresponsible spending must stop if we are to have a viable and sustainable economy for future generations.

I would also like to remind, Mr. Zano, and those other ‘elites’ that they continue to ignore the Tea Party at their own peril.  I would also ask all the Discord staffers who are currently doing inappropriate things to Christine O’Donnell ads to put it back in their pants and show some dignity!  Only then will I consider attending the Ghetto Shaman’s Rally on October 30th at the National Mall.

Please go to RichardPersing.com for more exciting Adventures in Fiscal Conservatisms.

Goodstock: Three Months of Jobs, Growth, and Prosperity has Died

Rick Right Pernick

The recovery summer, the love child of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, has gone to the big government program in the sky.  Little Stimuleena was only three months old.  There will be no open casket for this one, folks.  You could lose your lunch.  Oh wait, you can’t afford lunch anymore.  Nevermind.

A proud parent, Joseph Biden, announced Stimuleena’s birth on June 10th.   He expected her to have a full and rewarding life.  In spite of six weeks of milking the teets of taxpayers, the pork-fat that was consumed by the parents before, during, and after conception was apparently too much for the fetus to handle.

While most experts were skeptical Stimuleena could survive after birth, her parents were certain Obamacare would sustain her. Since the cost of medical care would no longer be an issue, the good taxpayers of America could pay dearly to sustain her.  After all, they had no choice.

Stimuleena is survived by her parents, Barack and Joseph; several god-parents, Rahm Emanuel, Christina Romer, Timothy Giethner, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid; numerous step brothers and sisters that reside in the democrat party; but no siblings…yet.

With the advice of co-god-parent Christina Romer, Barack may be planning the birth of another recovery child fund fest, Lollapelosi?  This time they were advised to increase the fat, and milk the teets less, to improve the longevity of their next love-child beyond November 2012 (when Barack will be seeking his second term as president).  We do not yet know if Hillary Clinton will be solicited to be the surrogate mother, although nine out of ten mental health professionals are discouraging this move.

Services will be held in private, with Barack Obama not yet willing to publically accept the loss.  Stimuleena’s body will however be maintained in a cryogenic state alongside Walt Disney’s head, in the minute hope Obamacare will find a cure sometime in the Futurama.

From My Cold Dead Amendments: Thomas Was Wrong to Invoke the 14th in Support of the 2nd Amendment

Rick Right Pernick

Our 2nd Amendment rights remain in jeopardy.  Former Congressman and 2008 Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr wrote in his publication The Barr Code, that Justice Thomas was the only Supreme Court Justice to issue an opinion rooted in constitutional law.  Barr is wrong and can no longer do shots in my bar (pardon the gun).

I have great respect for Justice Clarence Thomas, but the basis for his opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois is flawed…Daily Discord flawed! And while I’m sure there was a purpose related to current events, Thomas’s opinion to invoke the 14th Amendment creates continued opportunities for the states and municipalities to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is clear, concise, and straight-forward, in the same way the Ghetto Shaman is not.  The Tao of Skull F*ck*ng?  Really, people?  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  PERIOD, END OF STORY.  But I will continue this post, regardless. 

This is the Founder’s intent, as verified by the readings of the Federalist Papers, and the SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment right as an individual right in Heller v. District of Columbia. The 4th Amendment requires ‘probable cause’ be given ‘supported by Oath or affirmation’  before ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’ can be legally waived.

The 5th Amendment cannot be revoked ‘without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ Unless it’s really cool stuff, like Gibson’s Maserati…well, before he wrecked it.

And while the Northern States may have deemed it necessary to affirm the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, the ‘without due process of law’ clause in Section I provided the avenue for which the rights of the individual could be altered by those who write the law, namely government.

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms was intended to protect and defend all from an oppressive government and other hostile forces, foreign and Discordic.  A sensible person would claim a murderer or insane person should not have guns, but isn’t that why we have institutions such as prisons and asylums?  Isn’t that why, once convicted of a felony, a convict is forced to forfeit their constitutional rights?  It’s covered, people.  And thankfully I was both acquitted and medicated.

By arguing the 14th Amendment somehow guarantees us 2nd Amendment rights invokes a ‘due process’ clause by which the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted or revoked where no ‘due process’ clause existed.  On this issue, Thomas was wrong, but the question that must be asked, what was his intent?  Or is he off of his medications?

Is Barack Obama a Textbook Case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Rick Right Pernick

I was watching a television program yesterday in which one character was describing to another the traits of narcissistic personality disorder, wherein one feels compelled to create villains to defeat in order to be perceived by others as being a hero. Much of the following explanation of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is taken directly from the DSM-IV, the rest is taken from family reunions, BBQs, and Discord Christmas parties. 

While I have accused Obama of being a narcissist on many occasions, it didn’t occur to me until last night that his narcissism could be diagnosable.  So I decided this morning to learn more about this from a credible source—no, not our resident Dr. Nick of behavioral health, Mick Zano—I went to the MayoClinic.com.  NPD is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with NPD believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.   In other words, someone with NPD should never ask a question of our Ghetto Shaman.

Diagnosis: Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways—ways that limit their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school (or big white government buildings).

Symptoms: NPD is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

  • Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
  • Exaggerating your achievements or talents
  • Expecting constant praise and admiration
  • Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
  • Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
  • Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
  • Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
  • Setting unrealistic goals
  • Having a fragile self-esteem
  • Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
  • Painful urination and discharge (OK, I made that one up)

Although some features of NPD may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it’s not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a teleprompter…er, I mean pedestal (it’s like, reaching CEO Pierce Winslow levels of self adoration).

When you have NPD, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. This was on display for all to see during Obama’s so-called Health Care Summit.  According to those keeping time, Obama spoke for 119 minutes during the session, compared with 110 for Republicans and 114 for the other Democrats.  It was necessary for Obama to provide a rebuttal for every point republicans made in opposition to his plan.

When Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner announced how much more time those in favor of reform spoke vs. those opposed, Obama said “I’m the president, my time doesn’t count.”

You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior, like those who cling to their guns and religion. You may have a sense of entitlement.  How often have we heard the president say “I won” [the election]?  And when you don’t receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. Obama has demanded and received high praise from the mainstream media, and when the media asks a legitimate question, Obama mocks them publicly. 

You also may insist on having “the best” of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.  But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt.  This is prevalent in virtually every aspect of his presidency.  For every issue, there must be a villain, Wall Street, Insurance companies, big oil, big business; and everyone who disagrees with him is considered a potential home-grown terrorist according to his Homeland Security goons.

Causes: The causes of NPD are not known. As with other mental disorders, the cause is likely complex and involves a college education, country clubs, and numerous gin spritzers. Some evidence links the cause to a dysfunctional childhood, such as excessive pampering, extremely high expectations, abuse or neglect.  Without question, Obama had a dysfunctional childhood.  Born to a single drug dependent mother either in Hawaii or Kenya, he spent years during his early childhood being schooled in Indonesia, being passed along between his father, mother, and grandmother, subjected to radical religious, social, and political influences.  As he got older, he was granted admission to the best private schools and universities (tuition assumed to be paid by like minded sources).

Risk Factors: Narcissistic personality disorder is rare. It affects more men than women. It often begins in early adulthood. During his early adult years, his mentors included radicals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Saul Alinsky, adopting Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in community organizing activities and saw merit in their Marxist Liberation Theology (MLT—hold the Maoists).

Although some adolescents may seem to have traits of narcissism, this may simply be typical of the age and doesn’t mean they’ll go on to develop NPD.

Although the cause of NPD isn’t known, researchers continue to learn more about the factors that may increase the risk of developing the condition. In the past, experts believed excessive praise, admiration and indulgence from parents may lead to a pathologically inflated sense of self. Today, however, psychiatrists believe parental neglect is more likely responsible.

Risk factors for narcissistic personality disorder may include:

  • Parental disdain for fears and needs expressed during childhood
  • Lack of affection and praise during childhood
  • Neglect and emotional abuse in childhood
  • Unpredictable or unreliable care giving from parents
  • Learning manipulative behaviors from parents
  • an over exposure to MSNBC

Children who learn from their parents that vulnerability is unacceptable may lose their ability to empathize with others’ needs. They may also mask their emotional needs with grandiose, egotistical behavior that’s calculated to make them seem emotionally “bulletproof.”

It is my opinion, based on the Mayo Clinic’s definition of NPD  (hold the Mayo), and documented comments made by the president himself (about mayonnaise and other oil-based sandwich spreads), Obama is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  I am no doctor, I am no psychologist; however I am capable of reading, comprehending, and understanding the parallels between this condition and Obama’s actions and comments.

If Obama does indeed suffer from this mental disorder, does this inhibit his ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the POTUS?  It’s my opinion that Obama’s political views are a danger to the traditional American way of life, liberty, and prosperity.  Many who voted for Obama now regret their decision, claiming Obama’s idea of Hope and Change are not what they expected.  That’s fair, and it’s why we have elections. 

However, if Obama’s policies are not necessarily rooted in a Marxist political ideology, but more a reaction based in his narcissistic view of reality, is he a danger to society and our way of life?  Unfortunately, the answer to that question, to quote Obama, “…is above my pay scale.”

Obama Vying for Government Control over Financial Markets and Hookers

Rick Right Pernick

Obama is campaigning for financial reform by attacking the evils of greedy Wall Street executives, who he blames for the housing market meltdown, the ensuing credit crunch, and alternate street parking.  Just as he did with “health care reform,” Obama is creating a manufactured crisis in order to generate support for a government takeover of the financial markets, banks, and credit unions by suggesting that another financial crisis is immanent if financial reform is not passed.  Make no mistake, this bill WILL provide for a complete takeover of ALL financial institutions by the federal government.  And, even more disturbing, the next target of the administration may be the Daily Discord itself!

Obama is coordinating with the SEC, the DNC, Google, and the mainstream media, an attack on Goldman Sachs to support his agenda for more government control of the markets.  This is not mere coincidence.  This past Friday morning the SEC announced its charges against Goldman Sachs.  At 10:38 a.m. the New York Times broke this story into, what the Discord often describes as, “tiny shards of sensationalism.” 28 minutes later Organizing for America sent out an email from Barack Obama calling on people to support financial reform. The New York Times immediately followed with a story condemning Goldman Sachs. By mid afternoon, the DNC had its Google ads up tying the Goldman Sachs matter to financial reform with a direct link to the White House. By evening they’re all sipping gin spritzers and ordering the female entrainment.  This chain of events is stunning!  Not Ghetto Shaman stunning, but pretty bad.  

Sen. Chris Dodd has submitted his bill directly to Senate Majority Leader Dirty Harry Reid, bypassing the normal committee process, with no Republican support (which, on a good note, may help Zano sleep a little easier at night).

I have read the summary of this bill (while intoxicated, of course—a necessary evil).  Much has been said about opposition to the bank taxed $50B fund to finance future bailouts.  Democrats deny the fund is for bailouts, but the language of the bill proves the fund will be used at the discretion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for purposes of restoring viability or liquidation of the financial entity (which I believe may have something to do with hookers).  The CFPB—a completely autonomous agency housed within the government’s treasury department, but a legitimate acronym nevertheless—will have complete control over all banks and non-banks including small community banks and depositor owned credit unions, and will solely determine which financial products and services are sold to consumers.  Obama touts that the bill will end the policy of Too Big To Fail, thus ending bailouts, but what the bill actually will do is provide the Obama’s Treasury Department complete control to break up Too Big To Fail companies so they are no longer be too big to fail, using shareholder funds to finance their own breakup.

Obama claims shareholders will have a say on pay for executive compensation, supposedly giving shareholders a “powerful opportunity” to hold executives accountable, BUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON COMPENSATION IS NON-BINDING! …which, again, may have something to do with hookers.

Again, as per my last post, the bill will do NOTHING to correct problems that lead to the financial collapse in the housing market, given the fact it fails to repeal the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977), which enabled and encouraged mortgage loans through federal regulation and enforcement, to be made to low-income people who lacked the ability to re-pay the loans.  It does nothing to reverse the federal governments regulations that enabled bank and other financial systems to bundle these high-risk loans that the government run Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac were only to willing to buy up at the tax-payers expense.  This bill cannot fix the problem because it fails to address the REAL causes of the banking collapse. 

But for the same reason HCR wasn’t about health care, it was about the eventual government takeover of the health-care industry, this financial reform bill is all about the eventual government takeover of the financial markets.  Admittedly, I have not tied this government over reach, or reach around, to hookers, but I am close…very close.

The Truth about Liberal Lies

Rick Right Pernick

Obama wants you to believe Wall Street caused the financial meltdown to force more regulation. In fact, it was liberal operatives in government that enabled it.  As long as liberals choose to deny facts and refuse to live up to their own failures, we will have people like Obama spewing lies and deceptions in a personal quest to socialize this country. 

Carter started the fiasco with his 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.  In 1993, Clinton multiplied the problem amending the CRA by mandating quotas to force banks and finance companies to give loans to minorities who could not afford them.  In a few states like California, you didn’t even have to provide proof of employment or income verification.  Some didn’t have to even have a pulse.  See how well that’s working out for them?

The new federal regulations were tested a year later when a bank in NH wanted to expand and ACORN protested because the bank was deemed discriminatory; they refused loans to minorities at a higher percentage than whites.  It didn’t matter that the minorities were lower-income, and therefore legitimately failed to qualify under the same guidelines as whites, they were deemed discriminatory and the bank merger was denied.  This shot fired across the bow of banks effectively forced financial institutions to make loans to people who failed to meet normal qualifications, if the banks had any desire to expand their business. 

In 1999, Clinton signed into law the Gramm, Leach, Bliley act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to merge into bigger institutions and to sell each other’s products (including home loans, and stocks in such disreputable ezines as the Daily Discord).  The government regulators under the guise of de-regulation allowed these high-risk loans to be bundled and sold on the financial market.  This is how the largest insurance company in the world, AIG, was allowed to be caught up in this financial funk. 

Fannie and Freddie, under the control of democrat political operatives like Obama advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, bought up most of these high risk mortgages, hid the potential damage using Enron-style accounting, and took hundreds of millions of dollars from the companies as compensation in the process.  Similar to the disreputable accounting practices the Daily Discord.

The warning signs were there, and according to Investors Business Daily; “President Bush, reviled and criticized by Democrats, tried no fewer than 17 times, by White House count, to raise the issue of Fannie-Freddie reform. A bill cleared the Senate Banking panel in 2005, but stalled due to implacable opposition from Democrats and a critical core of GOP abettors. Rep. Barney Frank, who now runs the powerful House Financial Services Committee, helped spearhead that fight.” 

The fact is, democrats using government regulation of financial institutions created and thus enabled this mess, not Wall Street.  While some Wall Street executives of certain firms took advantage of government regulations in handling high risk investments, they did so within the parameters established by the government regulators.  It’s important to remember financial institutions have been heavily regulated by the federal government since the stock market crash of 1929.  Further government interference via regulation will only exacerbate the problem, not rectify it.

Praising Arizona

Rick Right Pernick

Arizona Deserves Praise, not condemnation, for enforcement of immigration laws and border security.  Since the implementation of Arizona’s immigration law there has been a great deal of discussion in the media, political circles, and individuals (including Mickless Zano).  While an overwhelming percentage of legal citizens are praising the State for doing the fed’s job, the media and politicians are attacking the governor of Arizona with accusations of discrimination, civil rights violations, constitutional violations, and fashion violations.  Did you see her on Fox last week?  Geesh.

Surprisingly, many critics are coming from the right side of the political spectrum.  For whatever reason, some who consider themselves conservative fail to understand one of few actual federal government responsibilities is to protect America’s sovereignty from foreign invaders and, yes, I would classify illegal alien immigrants as such.

If the feds enforced laws currently on the books, Arizona wouldn’t have to write its own law.  It wouldn’t have to do what is ultimately the feds responsibility. 

When President Reagan signed comprehensive immigration reform in 1986, which included amnesty for three million illegal immigrants, he did so with the understanding that Congress would provide the resources to enforce provisions to seal the borders from invasion.  Congress failed to provide those resources and now we have at least twelve million, and by some estimates, up to thirty million more illegal alien immigrants within our borders (not to mention our Barnes and Nobles).  I only have three illegals working on my lawn, so don’t blame me.

Are we to believe Congress will live up to its responsibility now?  The laws are on the books, yet enforcement is an epic fail, like the Ghetto Shaman’s last barely legal Kundalini cruise.  Again I ask, what will a new comprehensive immigration reform bill accomplish that is not already written into current law?  And again I ask, why doesn’t the Ghetto Shaman ever invite me on those things?

In 2007, when Bush, McCain and Kennedy colluded to get another amnesty passed, the people of this country rose up and said SEAL THE BORDERS FIRST.  Three years have passed, nothing has changed.  In fact, the Silent War has worsened on the southern border.  Every day a mime gets trapped in one of those invisible boxes.  It’s sad.  Phoenix, Arizona is second only to Mexico City in the number of kidnappings IN THE WORLD.  More people in this country have died at the hands of illegal immigrants than in the War in Iraq.  Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of our legal citizens, have been the victim of a violent crime at the hands of illegal immigrants. (This is more than Discord contributors and girl scouts combined…er, but I wouldn’t combine them.)

And now Chuck-you Schumer and others in Washington and the media wants comprehensive reform (code word for amnesty) again?!  The message is the same as it was three years ago; SEAL THE BORDERS FIRST, ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS NOW, and GET BREWER TO A NICE KOHLS OR SOMETHING.  Great clothing for a great value.  Then states won’t have to take the law into their own hands.  Oh, and support your local Brewer.   A Kohl’s gift card is always a good gift idea.

The Death Book Resurrection by Messiah Obama

Rick Right Pernick

A couple weeks ago the Wall Street Journal published an article on Your Life, Your Choices and this was not directed at 15 year-old cheerleader with an enlarged stomach.  This 53 page booklet, first published during the Clinton Administration, was promoted, by The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a source of information on how to develop a living will.   Bush’s White House was smart enough to realize the contents of the book advocated the perverse benefit of ending one’s own life and nixed the distribution of “The Death Book,” also known as the “Tibetan Book of the Discord.”

I read through this death book and was appalled by the content, not in a dissimilar manner to perusing this website. In virtually every example of disease or disability, the book is designed to project a feeling that perhaps it’s better to die than to live, saving your family and society from the burden of having to take care of you.  There is an exercise in the death book that asks “What makes your life worth living?”  There are four responses you can choose:

  • Life like this would be difficult but acceptable (and it’s illegal to kill the kids)
  • Life like this would be worth living, but just barely (and it’s illegal to kill the wife)
  • Life like this would be not worth living (unless I upgrade to a skinny chick)
  • Life like this would be…can’t answer now

The most positive outlook emphasizes the difficulty of life with the conditions described.  The death book focuses on the discomfort associated with life-sustaining care, and is life really worth living if you have to live in discomfort?  I am an individual with a disability (only part mental), I live in discomfort every day of my life (I write for the Daily Discord), but I’d rather be living than the alternative (say, a lengthy stay at the Ghetto Shaman’s Warrior Nursing Home Retreat). 

Another example deals with the pain one has from undergoing CPR if cardiac arrest occurs, describing the pain one experiences from chest compression and how a collapsed lung may occur for those who survive such compressions.  One is asked to contemplate if they prefer to experience this “pain”, or simply die and be comfortable.  They are encouraging whole factions of our fellow Americans to take the ‘societal big sleep,’ as it were.

Obama, democrats, and the culture of death and discord

As with most democrats, Obama surrounds himself with the culture of death.  He is pro-abortion, including the barbaric act of partial birth abortion, a horrific procedure where the newborn has exited the birth canal more than 50%, and then the baby is murdered, often after he or she has started crying.  (I apologize if the description of this procedure bothered anyone, but people need to understand that abortion does indeed destroy LIFE.)  Obama is pro-infanticide, as a State Senator he voted to prevent health care to babies who survived abortion procedures, allowing healthy babies to die from malnutrition or any other means since this PERSON wasn’t supposed to be permitted to live prior to exiting the womb.  I understand the flipside of this argument as it pertains to most of the Discord’s contributors (but these are the exceptions to the rule).

Now Obama advocates universal health care, but how universal is it?  HR3200 provides coverage to all women seeking abortion.  Since Obama is pro-infanticide, at what age before or after birth can one’s own child be terminated if the mother chooses to do so.  The government will pay to kill a life, but has no interest in providing the health care to sustain the baby’s life.

Obama and HR3200 provides mandatory “end-of-life” every five years for seniors or anyone else who suffers a potential life threatening disease or disorder.  Much of what’s in Obamacare for end of life “coverage” actually promotes death much like the death book.  In fact, While Sarah Palin is taking a beating for her open and honest assessment of Obamacare’s “death panels”, she is correct.  Government through Obama’s so-called stimulus bill provided the administration funding for such a panel to determine who should be provided “funding” based on their financial worth to society.  Obama has said it himself, and I quote “maybe instead of having surgery, it would be better to take a painkiller or see the Ghetto Shaman”.  What he is actually saying is “maybe instead of having LIFE-SUSTAINING surgery, it would be better to take a painkiller UNTIL YOU DIE.”  Everyone knows what Obama means, few other that Rush, Sarah, and I have the courage to communicate it.

Free Speech for Those who Can Afford It: An Informed Rebuttal

Republican elephantism stomps Obama
Rick Right Pernick

In March 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which essentially restricted the free speech rights of groups within 30 days prior to an election cycle.  Later, GWB, the former president not the bridge, would excuse his actions claiming while he was aware of the unconstitutional restriction of free speech, he signed the bill anyway assuming the law would be challenged and overturned by SCOTUS.  Shouldn’t he have championed freedom of speech?  Shouldn’t’ that &^%ing @$$ #$%* (shamelessly censored) defend our 1st Amendment *&^%s (not so shamelessly censored)?!

Now, instead of tax-paying corporations and NON-tax-paying labor unions contributing to political parties and candidates for advertizing within the 30 days of an election cycle (which incidentally was regulated and monitored by the FEC), we now have billions of dollars of practically unregulated funds being contributed through PACs (political action committees) and other 527 organizations.  Isn’t it remarkable that six years after McCain-Feingold we had the two most expensive presidential campaigns ever, in 2004 and 2008?  The 2008 presidential campaign alone cost over $2.4 billion.  WOW!  That’s not only change you can not only believe in, but change you can buy a third world country with.

McCain Feingold was challenged in 2003 and, in December of that year, Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing voter who sided with the liberal wing of the court to uphold the unconstitutional provisions of the law.  Following were another half-dozen or so rulings that tweaked the level for which free speech could be restricted.  I’m talking to you Winslow!

In January 2010, the SCOTUS took up the case of Citizens United v. FEC.   The case was brought by Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group that challenged restrictions on its ability to air a 90-minute (x-rated) film that was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, during her 2008 presidential bid. The case centered on whether the restrictions on political expenditures by corporations and unions stifled protected speech.  On a 5-4 vote, certain provisions of McCain Feingold were overturned and slipped out of a third story window.  Free speech rights for corporations and labor unions were restored.

Steve Simpson, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, called the ruling a “ringing endorsement” of the core principles of First Amendment and a victory for the marketplace of ideas.  The most compelling argument is, of course, (censored).  The Supreme Court recognized today that the purpose of the First Amendment is “to allow individuals and Americans to speak out as loudly and as robustly as they please,” with as many exclamation points, bold type, and bouts of profanity as The Crank deems necessary.  Simpson went on to say, “That applies whether an individual chooses to speak out alone or whether he chooses to associate with others and speak out as a group – whether that group is a corporation, an unincorporated association, or some Crank on a blog ezine thingie.”  The Discord may have tampered with this quote.

Dave, now that you know the fact-based history, it’s now time to put your opinion into proper context (I think I hear a flushing sound).

You opened your opinion with the statement, “If you think the last presidential election was swayed by advertising and the almighty dollar (I donated a five spot), just wait to see what the future holds.” 

Dave, you’ve taken the liberal position, as documented above: the 2008 presidential election cost over $2.4 billion, with all other races costing an additional $3 billion.  By comparison, the 2000 presidential election cost a total of $1.1 billion, and 2004 $1.2 billion, according to the FEC.  Campaign Finance Reform for Dummies?  The money spent has more than doubled since campaign finance reform was signed into law.

You go on to channel Obama’s SCOTUS address and the liberal mainstream idea that the “SCOTUS decision allows corporations limitless advertisements for their handpicked candidates.”  That’s a lie.  Under the ruling, corporations and unions will still be prohibited from giving direct contributions to candidates.  Please, read it for yourself HERE.

What amazes me most about your post is the level of vitriol you have to corporations and their contributions to campaign advertizing, yet you apparently have no problem with Labor Unions mandating the employees they’re supposed to represent, pay for political support of candidates they may oppose.   The SCOTUS decision lifted the free speech restrictions for them as well, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with their money infecting the system.

You believe “People have the right to speech, but corporations don’t.”   Why not?  Corporations pay income tax; in fact, the corporate income tax in the United States is the highest rate of any country in the world!  And if they are required by the government to pay taxes, they have a right to a voice in how their confiscated tax dollars are spent.  You cannot say the same about Labor Unions who also benefit from this decision.

Labor Unions are tax-exempt, and yet they are now able to spend just as much as tax-paying corporations on campaigns prior to elections.  I have no problem with that, except a union worker has no say in how their forced union dues are being spent. 

The 1st Amendment to the constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  I left out the parts of that quote that I didn’t think you should hear. And McCain Feingold abridged free speech by restricting the means by which speech is communicated.  On a related note, the semaphore version of The Daily Discord has been banned in Malaysia.  Citizens United v. FEC corrected this violation of free speech rights and Malaysia is now dead to me.

You again channel Obama and the MSM suggesting “a Japanese company with some U.S. holdings (or for that matter a Chinese company holding most of the U.S.) have the same interest as you and I.”  That statement from Obama caused a modest reaction from Chief Justice Roberts where he clearly said it’s Not True.  And Justice Roberts was right.  Obama either made an erroneous statement or he outright lied.  Nothing in the decision Citizens United v. FEC overturns FEC laws forbidding foreign contributions, although the laws didn’t stop Obama from accepting millions from illegal overseas contributors (not to mention the Ghetto Shaman’s weekly, er…package).

“Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Republican Gerald Ford [and bass player for Led Zeppelin], denounced the ruling as a dangerous rejection of common sense.”  What he sees as common sense is his opinion, which is irrelevant.  He is a Supreme Court Justice and is supposed to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional.  McCain-Feingold violated the constitution, regardless of your opinion or the opinion of left-wing activist Justices.

Oh, and you’re citing an opinion poll from a February Washington Post-ABC News poll, 85% of all Americans are opposed to this ruling; first off,  get your facts straight; it was nearly 80%, not 85%.  Besides, opinion polls are irrelevant.  I believe the Discord proved that with a recent poll. Anyone who takes an opinion poll as fact has hit one of those Ghetto Shaman retreats one too many times.  Consensus among 1000 people polled does not translate to fact.  People for the most part are under-educated and lack the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision.  It doesn’t make their opinion less important, but it doesn’t make them right either.  Dave, like it or not, this includes you.


Obama Just Needs a 9/11 Moment to Unite Country Behind His Agenda

Rick Right Pernick

I am no conspiracy theorist; I look at the facts and draw conclusions based on the information before me—kind of the anti-CrankZano, if you will.  That being said, recent facts are leading me to believe the Obama administration actions are creating opportunities for our enemies to attack.  But, more to the point, are future attacks actually being engineered by the White House? While Homeland Security (DHS) focuses on right-wing extremists as potential terrorists—you know, the ones who oppose abortion, gun control, high taxes, and liberalism in general—al-Qaeda linked Islamic extremists continue to plot against us.  Why would Obama’s DHS focus on freedom-loving people like me when al-Qaeda has attempted 28 terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11?  I mean, I’ve only attempted 27 in my whole life.  I’m kidding, of course.  The real number is much lower than that.

Many on the left were green with envy that 9/11 occurred on President Bush’s watch.  The liberals saw the country united in a way not seen since WWII, and there were those who said, “Why couldn’t this happen when a democrat was in office?”  They were less concerned about the attack on US soil that killed over three-thousand people than the personal and political implications of such an event.  Kind of like Dave Atsals’ Ground Zero Dogs, which did little to boost the morale or lower Manhattan (though they were arguably effective as colon cleansers).

Now we have Barack Obama in the Oval Office (BOOO!).  How’s that for a lousy acronym joke, Zano?  The Dems hold super-majorities in both houses of congress.  They have the power within their caucus to do their own bidding on the American people, but they are facing opposition within their own party as to how far to socialize this country.  Those on the extreme left, led by the Libranos, want nothing less than to destroy freedom and liberty in this country.  That’s my job!

Sorry, folks, socialism cannot work in a free society.  Then you have the so-called centrist democrats like Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu (festival, festival) who will sacrifice freedom and liberty for a price.  If the bribe is good enough, they will capitulate. And, as Obama rides the world-wide apology tour bus, he and his administration changed the military’s rules for engagement to a law-enforcement approach; he has conferred constitutional protections to those who would destroy our country—a country founded on the Constitution.  He would reduce the number of border patrol agents and tie their hands by allowing greater illegal access to the United States from Mexico.  This, despite the fact the DHS has shown al-Qaeda operatives have entered the US through this same border.  His TSA would post online, for all to see, the security manual outlining airport-screening procedures.  He would slash the budget for the Air Marshall agency of the DHS funding, forcing a reduction of air marshals by 60% from Amsterdam and Frankfurt, Germany.  Is it a coincidence Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam?  Is it a coincidence this is where the Ghetto Shaman gets his hash?  I don’t think so.

U.S. government officials acknowledged Abdulmutallab came to the attention of U.S. intelligence in November when his father went to the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, to express his concerns about his son’s connection to al-Qaeda, Yemen, and at least one explosive Jerry Springer episode.

This terrorist tried to blow up a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day while he was on a terror watch list; he still had a visa to the United States and was allowed to board the flight.  The Obama administration ignored the warnings.  U.S. intelligence agencies under Obama’s control were aware long ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with al-Qaeda, but failed to respond prior to Hasan killing more than thirty soldiers at Fort Hood.  It is inexcusable, like most Ghetto Shaman columns.

Obama and his administration are either operating on a level of incompetence never seen before (no easy trick), or this is a carefully orchestrated attempt to unite the country behind Obama in the aftermath of the next terrorist attack.  You decide…