Obama's version of "Degrees from Kevin Bacon"

In the now infamous "You didn't build that" line, the President and the Democrats continue to allege that the quote was taken out of context. They state that he was merely pointing out that business owners did not build things like roads and bridges that allows them to ship goods and greet customers. So let's accept that premise and point out that the President has now created a new game similar to the well known "Degrees from Kevin Bacon" game. That is where someone can name any actor, and within only 3 degrees of separation, one can connect that actor to Kevin Bacon's accomplished career by other actors with whom they have mutually worked. What the President is saying in his correction of those who criticized him for this comment is that you can pick any successful person and within 3 degrees you can attribute that person's success to the ubiquitous U.S. Federal Government and the collective. Play the game with family and friends. Its fun for all ages.

Off The Teleprompter

President Obama did it again while off the teleprompter yesterday saying “[P]eople like me can afford to pay a little bit more,” the president said. "Now understand, we’re talking about the top 1, 2 percent of people at the very top of the income scales. And we can afford it. We don’t need a tax cut. We didn’t ask for a tax break. You got corporations who are getting special deals on their tax codes. They don’t need a special deal. Let’s give a good deal to hardworking men and women who are out there struggling to make ends meet.

O.K. just who are the top 1 or 2% of people? According to the IRS, the top 1% of households begin at $380,000 per year and is very bottom heavy. A very quick check for statistics shows that the top 5% of households begins at $160,000 per year. Assuming that the top 2% of households is somewhere in the middle, you are right back to aggressively talking about raising taxes on households in the area of $200,000 per year, who apparently are not hardworking men and women. In fact, I would venture to say that many in professions not usually associated with affluence will fall into this category when household income is considered. Is "we" a proper pronoun for this claim? Now I am neither a billionaire, millionaire, upper class nor upper middle class. I am right smack in the middle of middle class, so why should I care? A breech of liberty for anyone is a loss of liberty for everyone.

Pastor Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

LinkedIn question for the President's Town Hall

Given that approximately 14% of drivers in the U.S. are uninsured (vs. 16% w/o health insurance), what is you administration's plan to create a publicly funded auto insurance program?

Those with auto insurance must currently pay an additional premium to subsidize those who choose or can not afford auto insurance. At its core, any insurance contract is the result of a premium received in return for an obligation to pay for a statistically predictable probability of loss. It matters not the nature of the risk. If the government should take over one form of insurance, why not all? Or dare I say none.

Of Miranda And The First Amendment

I find it curious how those in society today make such an effort to silence their critics, or adversaries. Anyone who has spent any meaningful time in law enforcement will tell you just how counterproductive that is. As always, truth is the great liberator. That is why our founders were so adamant about protecting the freedom of expression up until the point where it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of another. Miranda v. Arizona provided an extra level of protection for those too dimwitted to avoid violating their own Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination through the free exercise of their First Amendment rights.

As is often the case, Hollywood's depictions of suspect questioning are far from reality. Commonly the best information is derived not through the tenacious inquiries and rambling threats from the interrogator, but from the patience to allow the suspect to freely speak and fully answer questions. As individuals feel increasingly comfortable they allow their inhibitions to leave and will themselves provide a more clear picture of who they are. You see, the longer you allow someone to speak, inevitably more bits of truth appear. Those with patience and attentiveness to detail are able to see through all the irrelevant information to hear those few words that paint a clear picture of the character of the individual to whom they speak. The words used in situations are very important and must not be disregarded.

If truth of content and character is found through allowing your adversary to freely express themselves, then why do so many people try to silence their critics through dismissal, name calling and other techniques of distraction. History shows that those who try to silence critics, are at best fearful of facts and driven by emotion or at worst fearful of a larger conceptual truth and devoid of reason. If a critic is not being truthful, present facts on the topic and watch how quickly the reasoned debate devolves into name calling. Allow them to speak and simply point out there inconsistencies. In the arena of public debate it is always those true to their conceptual beliefs and philosophy that are able to remain consistent.

Evidence of reactions described above:
Nancy Pelosi's can beat'em join'em, try to beat'em again when they realize you are a fraud strategy

Rob Reiner's pseudo-intellectual name calling strategy that perfectly depicts how the progressives reached their current majority

Then candidate Obama's candid moment that he would like everyone to forget.

Maxine Waters accidentally letting truth escape Progressivism, Socialism, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.

David Axelrod's criteria for justifying slander

What Joe Barton Should Have Said

Where the hell is the rule of law? In the past the one thing that made us different, and yes better, than the rest of the world is 1) the rule of law not man and 2) our economic system. BP is going to pay what I am sure will be a very high price for this, that may indeed bankrupt your company. However that is for the civil courts to determine, should BP not make amicable restitution for the damage caused. If law enforcement investigations find criminal neglect, then individually criminal courts will address those issues. What we as a Congressional Committee want to know is what has been, is being and will be done in to stop the ongoing issue of the oil spill? Have your people stop the spill, while you and your Board Of Directors prepare for making reparations that might save your company. Remember the Board of Directors? They are the supposed to be the overseers representing your investors, we seem to have forgotten this in the U.S. and made this the authority of the Federal Government. In that way, I would like to remind every Representative here what their role is as a member of the legislative branch of our government. We write and pass laws. Our focus should be on whether the laws in place on this matter are adequate and whether changes need to be made through different legislation. The executive branch, should be pursuing whether laws were violated and/or whether poor enforcement of existing law occurred. The judicial branch will deal with the civil remedies. Now YOU, as CEO of BP, need to get off of your ass and 1) have your people stop the continued damage. I don't really care how. Just get it done. and 2) While your people are doing that, get with your Board and figure out how you will make everything and everyone whole and hopefully save your company in the process. As for anything else, your sitting here is wasting time.

Fruit From The Poisonous Tree

There is a doctrine in law that states that if the source of evidence is fraudulent or illegitimate, then anything derived from that evidence is by its very nature illegitimate.

This doctrine stems from a U.S. Supreme Court Case from 1920 called Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. In this case, the defendant was charged with tax evasion. In an illegal search, Siverthorne's books were copied and used as evidence. The case raised the argument that admission of evidence, regardless of its veracity, should be denied because of the manner by which it was obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that admission of such evidence despite the improper method by which it was obtained only serves to encourage circumventing the rule of law and The Constitution (specifically the Fourth Amendment). Paraphrasing biblical text, a tainted tree can not yield untainted fruit.

Consistency and universal applicability of law are foundations of our current system and critical to any Constitutional Republic. That is why litigators reference prior case law when presenting their arguments. We are supposed to have a rule of law in this country, not the rule of man. This is because man has the complexity of emotion that clouds judgment and creates inconsistency.

Why then do we abandon this legal precedent when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration? When an illegal alien violates immigration law by entering this country without documentation, they become the poisonous tree. Currently we accept any children they may have while living in this country as citizens, despite the parents being here is in itself a violation of law. Hence the "anchor baby" strategy of circumventing U.S. immigration law.

If we are to remain consistent in legal doctrine, then something has to give. I would hope that the deterioration of The Constitution would not be a price the citizenry is willing to pay for the allowing circumventing of law simply to make us feel better about a problem that is in no way made better by such amnesty.

A Nation Of Children

Watching the C-SPAN vote on the Democrats Health Care Reform Bills, the paternalistic philosophy of governance that drives the liberal mindset became increasingly apparent for public consumption. As recent public comments by the likes of House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama himself have shown, their continued push to socialize the health care industry and our country would continue despite the will of the people. That is because of their sincere belief that the American people are not capable of self determination but must be cared and provided for, as a child of the paternalistic government. Provisions by government create dependency on government and a self perpetuating deterioration into socialism.

Mrs. Pelosi repeatedly and proudly referred to Social Security and Medicare in her giddy excitement over the socialization of yet another aspect of American life. Americans are not capable of educating themselves and their family and must consequently be educated by a failing government school system (Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln must not have ever existed). Americans are not capable of planning for their own retirement and must consequently be forced through taxation into a financially bankrupt Social Security System despite its pathetic return on investment. Americans are not capable of purchasing health insurance due to perverted circumstances created by the government and must consequently be forced into a more bureaucratic government controlled system. All of this is necessary in the liberal mindset because the common people just are not capable of self determination. The arrogance and audacity of the liberal mindset belies the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" that Mrs. Pelosi attempted to quote, as if socialism is in some way a part of the American fabric. Liberals do not like to be reminded that it was originally "life, liberty and property", because they have not respect for any of the three. In the liberal mind set life, liberty and property of the individual must be second to the proper distribution of said factors as they deem "fair".

Indeed we as a society have been moving away from self determination for decades. In American life, and now in the Health Care Reform Bill, adolescence has been extended into the mid to late 20's. Previously people of this age were supporting themselves and their families. Now these able young Americans are encouraged, indeed subsidized, to remain dependent. Where young family members used to aid and support the elders of their family, they are now encouraged, indeed subsidized to turn both children and elders over to the paternalistic government. Once multi-generational dependency is solidified, we will indeed be children of the liberals. We will be seeking to please them for whatever provisions they deem us worthy of receiving.

If you think this is an exaggeration, then I refer to Mrs. Pelosi's "great unfinished business of our society" comment. She was obviously referring to a stepped up version of the recognized failure of "The Great Society". She referred to health care coverage as a right. According to the dictionary, a right is that which is due to anyone by just claim. If health care is a right then one has a right to a portion of a doctor's life without expectation of compensation. Either that or a right to someone's property that will be used to compensate a doctor for their service. You see a right is something that does not require anything of another. It is due to the holder by its very nature. With health care being a right this will by definition take from another as determined by the government.

The liberal government aristocracy has taken another step to total paternalistic control. At what point will the American people regain the fortitude to accept responsibility and demand that which are truly their inalienable rights.