Monthly Archives: March 2010

Sharpton admits Obama is Socialism

He actually admitted it.

Are we allowed to use that word again now? Is the left going to stop lying and saying that it is “code for racism.”

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, video

Elect Anyone Butt Harry Reid

Here’s me reading “Harry Reid” (by Jack Norcross) accompanied by pictures of the trailer I saw the poem on.

I took the trailer photos Elko, NV.
I took the sign photo in Alamo, NV

poem by Jack Norcross
photos by Greg Irwin
I have no connection with Jack Norcross, I just saw the trailer while travelling.

"Harry Reid" by Jack Norcross

Leave a comment

Filed under humor, parody, politics, video

Law of unintended consequences

Every law has unintended consequences. We don’t usually find out about them until it’s too late and the cure is sometimes worse than the disease.

I just thought of a possible one for Obamacare.

It’s been thoroughly discussed that “children” may be left on their parent’s insurance through 26 years old. Now combine this with the mandate to purchase and you have an interesting possible scenario:

Mom and Dad want/need to remove an 18-26 year old adult “child” from their insurance policy (for any of various reasons). Will they be able to? Since this adult is legally dependent on them (in at least one way) are they still legally responsible for the mandate to purchase for their “child”?

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

What is “historic”?

I’m sick and tired of hearing people blather on and on about how “historic” the health care takeover is. Historic doesn’t mean good.

9/11 was historic.
Pearl Harbor was historic.
Kristallnacht was historic.
the Alamo was historic.

That doesn’t mean they were good.

Passing something this blatantly unconstitutional and tyrannical against incredible public opposition is certainly historic. That doesn’t mean that this is a good thing.

1 Comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Of course donks have “principles”

This was too good not to repost.

This post is taken from Michellemalkin.com (all formatting by me).

On March 21st, 2010 at 5:44 pm, Regulus said:

Of course donks have “principles:”

1. I am a donk first, and an “American” second. When America becomes worthy of me, I might reconsider.

1a. “No” doesn’t really mean “no” when I am doing to you what I know is best for you.

2. The answer to every problem is more government.

2a. When the government creates problems, see 2 above.

3. The American People are a bottomless pool of money — that doesn’t belong to them, but to the government.

3a. As long as I have checks in my checkbook, I am entitled to write checks regardless of what the bank says about my account balance. Likewise, when I run the government printing presses it is impossible for me to “run out of money.”

3b. If you are more prosperous than me, it’s because you inherited it undeservedly from your parents who screwed over “the poor,” or because you screwed over “the poor” yourself. Either way, you must be punished by having your ill-gotten gains confiscated and re-distributed as I see fit.

4. No sacrifice is too great for me to call upon you to make.

5. Anything which increases the power of government in general, and that of the donkey party in particular, is an a priori good.

6. Honesty, decency and intellectual consistency, like taxes, are for “little people.”

7. When I use government to make racial minorities into permanent wards of the state, I am a good person. If you disagree, then you are a racist.

8. When I dissent, I’m a patriot. When you do, you’re un-American.

9. Rules are for fools when they interpose themselves between me and what I want, but they can be helpful as clubs to use on you.

10. When you understand what I want, then we’ll have a “mutual understanding.”

There’s lots more, but you get the idea.

Leave a comment

Filed under humor, politics

Four Arguments Against Fed Health Ins Requirements

The Colorado Tenth Amendment Center recently posted the article:
Can Colorado “opt out” of Obama Care?

This article provides four powerful arguments against those who erroneously claim: “Well, you have to get car insurance.”


One of the justifications we hear for this mandate is Auto Insurance. That people have to buy auto insurance is held up as proof that government has this power. There are four things I ask you to consider before you make up your mind. First, driving an automobile on public roads is a privilege not an unalienable right like “life”. Second, those are state laws, not Federal, and the States have far more powers then the constitutionally limited federal government. Third, the law only requires you carry insurance to cover damages you may do to someone else, not yourself. And finally, you can choose not to drive an automobile on public roads and avoid having to buy insurance. These four facts completely invalidate this argument for anyone who considers this question objectively.


To summarize in handy list fashion:

1.) Driving an automobile on public roads is a privilege, not an unalienable right like “life”.

2.)
Those are state laws, not Federal, and the States have far more powers then the constitutionally limited federal government.

3.)
The law only requires you carry insurance to cover damages you may do to someone else, not yourself.

4.) You can choose not to drive an automobile on public roads and avoid having to buy insurance.

I’ve made argument #4 before, though not as eloquently.


You don’t have to get car insurance to own a car. If I buy a car and I leave it sitting in my garage, I don’t have to insure it. (Although, I might want to insure it as a collectable if it is a classic.)

Also, you can drive on private property without insurance, as long as you don’t venture out onto public roads. Many farmers and ranchers maintain old pickup trucks that they only use on their property. These vehicles do not have to be insured or inspected. Also, you don’t have to be licensed to drive them. Many teens and preteens grow up driving the old truck around the farm before they’re ever allowed to drive on public roads.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics