Democrats seem to have a problem with time. You know, the stuff on the clock or the calendar. They seem to obsess over things that happened 150 years ago, or more, but seem unable to deal with something that happened a year ago. For instance, Democrats will happily rattle on for hours about how it is Democrats who are preventing the return of institutionalized slavery which has been illegal since the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865. That’s 148 years ago, and its ratification was led by Republicans. Democrat politicians from south of the Mason-Dixon Line tried for almost 100 years to nullify the amendment through the creation of “Jim Crow” laws.
On the other hand, ask them about Obamacare and you get crickets.
Immigration has to be a major issue in both 2014 and 2016 election campaigns. We must put a stop to the invasion of the United States by the citizens of foreign nations that drain our treasury and offer little, if any, contribution to the commonweal. And acceptance of assurances by Democrats that “Of course we’ll secure the border first” should be treated with the disdain and contempt that such promises deserve. Will their mantra on this before the elections be something like “The border will be secure. Period!”? Well, more than likely it will. After all the single word “Period!” helped secure the White House, didn’t it?
So there are two solutions to the problem of securing our border. One of course is a serious and secure fence. Yes, that’s been tried, but not with the urgency or national sense of purpose that was applied to the first moon landing, and that’s what effort is needed. The second is to use something that we are already spending money on anyway — the military that is currently protecting the nations of the European Union. We could “bring the boys home by Christmas” which alone would make the troops happy, make their spouses happy (well, usually), make moms and dads and more than a few grandparents happy. But beyond making them happy, we could, as we did in the old west, build a series of forts along the border and man them with the troops transferred back from Europe.
Calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment that made taxing incomes legal, at the Federal level, might run in to a small problem. First and foremost, of course, is getting two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass such a proposed amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment. The second is that there are 41 states that have state income taxes. I’m not enough of a constitutional scholar to review 41 state constitutions, or how they might interact with the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, but I feel confident in saying that should the 16th Amendment be repealed it will be a joyous day in legal firms in every one of those forty-one states since there is no doubt that state income tax levies would be contested in courts from coast-to-coast.
In all the talk generated by Democratic Party candidates and Democrat incumbents about “women’s health issues” why is the responsibility of “daddy” never mentioned. If “mom” wants to get an abortion, why not demand that “dad” pick up the tab. Abortion, as nearly as I can determine, is (with few exceptions) elective surgery. Why is an insurer required to pick up the tab? How about we require a paternity test before any government paid abortions take place and then dock daddy for the cost of the abortion. Unless mommy plans on naming the fetus Jesus, it took two to get it started, and those same two should pay to end the life of that fetus. If they won’t pay for the abortion, how about 18 years of child support?
Republicans (and I don’t mean the RINOs like McCain and Graham) in tandem with the Tea Party have stumbled on the goose that lays the golden eggs. Talking points can be crafted that will hammer on the Dems and Progressives from now until 2016 with a constant stream of zingers that all end the same way. For example:
Common Core: “If you like the curriculum in your local schools, don’t worry. Under Common Core you can keep it. Period.”
Immigration Reform: “If you think that the nation needs to secure its borders before letting more future Democrat voters in, don’t worry. Under the Democrats immigration reform plan, no immigration will be allowed unless the border is secure. Period.”
NSA Scandal: “Too many people feel isolated in this great nation of ours. Too many feel that no one listens to them. But Barack Obama does. He listens to everything every one of you says. He just uses the NSA to do it for him. Period.”
The Economy: “If you like being unemployed, under President Obama you are guaranteed that you will stay unemployed. Period.”
Well, you get the idea.
An article on the Cato Institute’s website ( New Study Explains How and Why Parents Choose Private Schools) caught my attention when I realized that standardized testing, the kind of thing which dominates the justification for the Common Core Standards nonsense was actually a benefit for the teachers unions in America. Now, instead of being a “floor” of knowledge, it allows teachers to have a “ceiling” above which they are no longer required to teach.
The Obamacare navigators were supposed to undergo a criminal background check before gaining access to the personal financial and medical records of the American public, but HHS Secretary Sebelius can’t spare the time to get that particular legislative mandate accomplished so she is “waiving” that requirement so that thousands of uninvestigated people can help the poor boobs in the country buy more insurance than they need, at a price higher than they can afford, because that’s “justice”.
Two things: First, does the idea of selling people more than they need, at a price they can’t afford, for a goal seen only by the uber-liberal statist progressives with any costs of failure carried by ordinary Americans who never thought their own policies, paid with by their own hard earned wages were “substandard” sound familiar? Oh, yeah! Now I remember, it sounds EXACTLY like the logic supporting the sub-prime mortgage scheme. And we all know how well THAT worked out, don’t we?
The second thing is that the criminal background checks that Sebelius can’t seem to get done are done every single day when someone wants to buy a gun. Background checks to prevent gun sales seems to work flawlessly, yet background checks to prevent criminals becoming government employees as “navigators” is an insurmountable problem.
Of course it is. For this administration at least.
Remember “Change we can believe in” or “Hope and Change”? They were used quite well by the Barack Obama Snake Oil and Dream Factory Corporation in 2007-2008. Change, for Obama, was simply a synonym for Progress. And Progress, again for Obama, meant moving ahead to a changed human condition that was superior to the that which existed when his self-proclaimed exalted person appeared on the scene.
Progress usually means that (A) there is a definable goal in sight and (B) that any changes bring you closer to that goal relative to where you are currently. Progressives continually conflate “progress” with “change” when in fact the two terms are not necessarily related. You can have “change” without any progress, but you can’t have “progress” unless there is change. But the definable goal has to be a known objective. Obama seems to be extremely reluctant to define his objective (yes, thank you, I actually do have a gift for understatement).
Politicians don’t really want to help people who need help. They could of course, but they won’t. Why? Because they seem to be unable to differentiate between those who “need” help and those who “want” help, even if they don’t need it. And if they turn down those who “want” something but provide it or those who really “need” it, they are terrified that they will lose the votes of those who merely “want” whatever the benefit might be.
For example, if they want to help those who are truly poverty stricken, how do they satisfy both the needy and those who merely want more. Why, they adjust the so-called “poverty level” upward so more people are included.