- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 1, 2008
I never thought George W. Bush was a fascist. Apparently I was wrong:
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
What does this remind me of? Hm… sounds familiar but I just can’t place it.
Oh yeah, that’s right.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
You think?!?! The Posse Comitatus Act is short and to the point:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
A posse comitatus means as a domestic or local law enforcement body. It literally means “the power of the county” and the act is intended to keep the federal government out of states’ rights. It was enacted after President Grant used troops as poll monitors during Reconstruction.
Unfortunately, many choose to believe that because of other laws passed, that it doesn’t really apply anymore:
But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.
This, my friends, is the definition of “slippery slope”.
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
- Posted by Christopher Estep on October 27, 2008
A primary tactic of the Left is the constant battle to define the Right by trying to redefine reality itself. With the help of the MSM, they will fill a diatribe with lies and then build on those lies to make their real point. It is as effective as it is subversive.
Because of this ploy, a number of lies have become accepted as fact simply because they have been repeated so much:
- Joe McCarthy was responsible for Hollywood blacklisting.
- Silicone breast implants caused cancer.
- Abortion rights are in the Constitution.
- Nuclear power is dangerous
Not that it is any surprise, but they’re trying again but this time they are trying to bury Reaganism and conservatism with this strategy:
Having doubled-down on Reaganism, they know that a loss under these circumstances would be not just a momentary electoral set back, but a huge repudiation of conservative ideology, and a huge mandate for progressivism. And so conservatives are already trying to revise history to pretend these last few months of the campaign never happened.
Sirota, a socialist in his own right (he was Bernie Sanders’ press secretary) errs at a very fundamental level:
- John McCain is not a Reagan conservative, in spite of his own claims.
- Barack Obama has been trying to hide his Wilsonian progressive agenda.
And so Sirota attempts to cloak his own revisionism by preemptively accusing Republicans ahead of time of his own scheme and cloaks it in the term “conservative”.
It’s not going to work.
The only way Scrota’s scenario would be true would be if Obama had run as a “progressive” instead of trying to appear moderate. Most who will vote for Obama don’t think he supports progressive socialism. They don’t think he wants to take from one group and give to another. That’s socialism. They will scream (as Biden did) that the correct characterization of Obama as a Marxist is just an attack. If the electorate thought that progressivism was being voted on, they would reject it. One only needs to read the Huffington Post itself to see how the so-called progressives have chastised Obama for trying to move to the right.
Further, nobody in their right mind would characterize McCain as a conservative. McCain is pro-amnesty. He votes against tax cuts. He thinks corporate profits should fall under government scrutiny. He’s drunk the global warming Kool-Aid. He voted for the $700,000,000,000 bailout and never saw a “stimulus” he didn’t like.
If Obama is elected, the only mandate is that George W. Bush is an idiot, but not the sophomoric way the commulibs portray him. He’s an idiot because he thought “bipartisan” meant something other than “Democrats getting their way and still criticizing Republicans for it.”
David Sirota: The GOP's "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument
- Posted by Christopher on August 21, 2008
Afghanistan has won its first ever Olympic medal. Let me say that again. Afghanistan has won it's very first medal. Ever.
Just a few short years ago, the Taliban was beatingits own people for celebrating during soccer games. If Bush hadn't had the will to liberate Afghanistan, this wouldn't have been even remotely possible.
Congratulations to the Afghanis!
Video link here, hat tip to Club For Growth.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on July 16, 2008
The President is finally going to lift the ban!
Of course, Congress has to lift its own ban but it’s still leadership, something democrats never seem to understand. Leadership is being in front. Granted, Bush waited 7 and a half years, but better late than never.
The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.
In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off America’s coastline.
Congress must still lift its own legislative ban before offshore drilling can happen.
Michelle Malkin » Finally: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 12, 2008
Our illustrious Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has decided that enemy combatants have constitutional rights, regardless of where they're being held.
Have they lost their everloving minds?! This will result in at least two things happening:
- Terrorists will no longer be taken prisoner unless they overtly surrender. Troops have just lost all motivation to to take prisoners instead of just killing them and letting Allah figure it out.
- Prisoners will be kept by our allies that, unlike SCOTUS, do not believe that foreign nationals who have been captured on foreign soil do not have the same rights as citizens.
It's my opinion that this decision is the SCOTUS' attempt to smack down the Bush administration because they're sick of them skirting the edge of constitutionality by relying on technicalities an nuances in law and procedure. In other words, SCOTUS is mad because the Administration is acting like lawyers.
As much as I hate to say it, McCain is the only hope that these decisions get worse. I hate, hate, hate saying that!! You have some saying that 2 years of Obama will get us another Republican congress, but how many communist judges and justices will 4 or 8 years of Obama get? We're talking about decades of these types of decisions.
I loathe McCain, but can his judicial picks be worse than Obama's?
What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
Michelle Malkin » Supreme Court opens up Gitmo lawsuit floodgates; Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 29, 2008
I'll just say it. Hypocrite. His own words damn him worse than anything else that could be said about him:
When he was press secretary, McClellan made some of the same arguments against other ex-officials that he now faces. In 2004, for example, former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke published a book sharply critical of Bush's anti-terrorism policies.
"Why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner?" McClellan said. "This is 1 1/2 years after he left the administration. . . . He is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book, and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book."
I almost feel sorry for McClellan. If he thinks he was a pawn then, he needs to remember the King and Queen of Congress have only just begun with him. I sincerely hope he has a good lawyer, because he's about to spend a lot of time in front of Congress and I would be very surprised if they don't try to prosecute him for something he's written.
'Disillusioned' McClellan Defends Memoir - washingtonpost.com
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 6, 2008
We've all heard the typical talking-points that both parties use to identify the other. Rich white guy, bleeding heart liberal, that sort of thing.
In what is sure to be the modus operandi this fall, Howard "YAAAH!" Dean has given a hint as to how he wants his party to characterize us:
"When voters see John McCain's real record, they are not going to elect a radical rubber stamp who voted for every one of President Bush's activist judges and promises hundreds more just like them," DNC chairman Howard Dean said Tuesday.
I literally had to read that twice. That is...amazing. Even democrats won't buy that. It's laughable.
You're right, Howard. Republican judges are running rampant making sure that criminals can be executed, citizens can own guns in their own homes and bitter people (with the aforementioned guns) can cling to their "god".
Bring it on, Howard. Bring it on.
McCain castigates Obama on judges
- Posted by Christopher Estep on March 24, 2008
I think the first amendment to the constitution is pretty clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of that is unclear? How does the McCain campaign finance law past muster? Isn't it a law? Doesn't it abridge the freedom of speech? I don't see the ambiguity in this. "No law" doesn't leave much room for creative interpretation. It doesn't say "unless..." or "except..." So how can the SCOTUS allow this?
Well, they've continued to allow it again. An Anti-Hillary group doesn't want to disclose who paid for a movie criticizing her and the courts have no problem allowing the FEC to say otherwise.
The basis is that they claim that the movie is subject to censorship and regulation because it urges people to not elect Hillary. They reject the claim by Citizens United that the movie should be treated like 60-Minutes because it's more news than political ad.
Given what Dan Rather did to the President, how can the Court see otherwise? They cooked up a fraudulent hatchet job directed at the President!
- Posted by Christopher Estep on February 29, 2008
Available for purchase this evening.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on February 12, 2008
In what could best be described as hearkening back to the "good old days" of Nixon price controls, President Bush, not content to bribe voters with with other people's money in a so-called "stimulant package", has taken the idiotic step to put a 30-day freeze on foreclosures for "homeowners who qualify" which I interpret to mean as many people as possible.
Dubbed "Project Lifeline," the new program will be available to people who have taken out all types of mortgages, not just the high-cost subprime loans that have been the focus on previous relief efforts.
The program was put together by six of the nation's largest financial institutions, which service almost 50 percent of the nation's mortgages.
These lenders say they will contact homeowners who are 90 or more days overdue on their monthly mortgage payments. They will be given the opportunity to put the foreclosure process on pause for 30 days while the lenders try to work out a way to make the mortgage more affordable to the homeowner.
This is meaningless, symbolic crap that does nothing to help anyone and forces lenders (many of whom aren't among the six largest) to extend themselves even further and shoulder the burden of their borrowers' inability to pay (and most likely, read a contract as well).
That's all we need, Mr. President! Keep convincing people that there is no personal responsibility in anything. If we fail, Daddy Government will help us out!
The simple fact is that banks already do what this program is attempting which is why they're going along with it. Do you think a lender wants to own property? No!! The last thing that a lender wants is to foreclose. They will talk to you and they will work things out with you if at all possible.
We've got to stop treating adults like babies. Just because someone cries like Hillary Clinton does on days that end in Y, doesn't mean we need to save them. Life is hard. Life is not fair. If you withhold people from the Refiner's Fire, they'll never be strong and we're condemning them to a life that's tougher than Rosie O'Donnell's feet.
Grow up, people! Quit expecting Santa Bush to save you!