• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The Quality of Ones Culture is Exposed in That Culture’s Art

I found the following piece at the DennisPrager Show (dennisprager.com), “Modern Art Alert #453”.

“A prize-winning lifelike sculpture of a squatting policewoman urinating has whipped up a storm of protest in Germany, where it went on prominent display last week.

The work entitled “Petra” by 27-year-old German sculptor Marcel Walldorf is made of silicone and metal and has pitted public officials against art world aficionados in the debate over what is acceptable in the name of high culture.

It depicts a young female police officer in full riot gear crouching to pee, with exposed buttocks and a small gelatin “puddle” affixed to the floor of the gallery at the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden, eastern Germany.

The work entitled “Petra” was completed one year ago and has captured a 1,000-euro (1,328-dollar) prize by the prestigious Leinemann Foundation for fine arts.

“It shows very well the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere,” the jury said.

But Saxony interior minister Markus Ulbig, who is responsible for the state’s security services, told the German press he was “shocked” by the sculpture, which he branded “an insult to police officers.”

The GdP police union also blasted the piece, saying it “breached the limits of artistic freedom.”

“There have of course been letters of protest, particularly addressed to the artist,” a spokeswoman for the Academy of Fine Arts, Andrea Weippert, told AFP.

But she insisted that the public response had been “overwhelmingly positive”.

“People who visit the show are not offended,” she said.

She said she was surprised by the attention given to the display of “Petra” in Dresden as it had already been featured in smaller shows in the cities of Berlin and Leipzig.

“The artist is exploring a taboo zone. ‘Petra’ is not a provocation,” she said. “It is an observation of society.”

House Votes Down ObamaHealth 245-189

Allahpundit at HotAir wrote the following:

“The House will pass H.R. 2 this week. Once that bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.

Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk.

Needless to say, you’re not going to find 13 Senate Democrats to vote with the GOP on cloture even if it did come to the floor and notwithstanding the jitters that centrists are feeling ahead of their 2012 reelection bids. But it’d be sweet to force a vote anyway, just because (as noted at the link above) it would make Democrats squirm at possibly having to invoke the filibuster at a moment when filibuster reform is all the rage among their base. And if the GOP regains a Senate majority in 2012, they could conceivably use reconciliation to break a Democratic filibuster and push a repeal bill through — but it won’t be easy.

For further reading, kindly enjoy this analysis from today’s NYT about how, almost a year later, we still have no idea of how ObamaCare will perform in practice. In a sane world, tremendous uncertainty about the outcome would make it impossible to enact a new, nationwide, massively expensive, possibly unrepealable entitlement. But that’s not our world, is it? ”     For more information and a break down of the voting click on below:


Dick Morris Reviews the Obama-Republican Spending Battles

President Obama has made all the symbolic moves he needs to move to the center.  But the essence of successful triangulation has to be rooted in policy not in image.  As key policy issues come up in Congress, the president will have to move to the center or continue to hang out on the left.  His choice will set the stage for the elections of 2012.
The symbolism of his response to the Tucson shootings reminded us of President Clinton at Oklahoma City.  His initiative to reduce federal regulation is, at least, a cosmetic improvement. (Although it comes as he prepares, by executive action, to impose a carbon tax on American business, a ban on secret ballots in union elections, and FCC efforts to cripple talk radio).  His appointment of Daily as his Chief of Staff sent a signal of coming moderation.

But the rubber will meet the road when the feds run out of money next month and need an increase in the federal debt limit to continue to operate.  Republicans in the House will pass the increase, but only if the legislation also enacts big spending cuts at the same time.  These cuts – running in excess of $100 billion a year – will roll back the increases in spending triggered by the stimulus package and reverse the trend of the Obama years, shrinking rather than expanding the federal government.
How will Obama respond?
If he stands his ground and refuses to sign the bill with the spending cut attached, he will trigger a governmental crisis par excellence.  Social Security checks may not go out.  Soldiers may not get paid.  The government may close.  And the fight will be simple:  Should we borrow more or spend less?  With public opinion solidly behind the Republicans on the issue, Obama may well see the wisdom in beating a retreat.

But at what price?  If Obama folds and agrees to big cuts in education, transportation, environmental and other spending, he will anger the left catalyzing a possible primary fight.  He will, in the view of his 2008 supporters, have “sold out” and demands will increase for a liberal alternative in 2012.  

And Obama will look weak as he folds in the face of the Republican Congress.  He will appear to lack conviction and the power to make his views stick.  Weakness is a disease that destroys presidencies.
Republicans need to make his dilemma more acute by extending the debt limit for only three months (about $500 billion) to force Obama to come back to the well for more water before the summer.  And then, once again, Republicans can use the legislation as a way of forcing a rollback in Obama’s agenda – like the defunding of health care?
Either way, Obama has a tough choice – fight on the wrong side of public opinion or look weak caving in!

“Anti-Defamation League and Other Protectors of Political Correctness in Snit over Alabama Governor’s Remarks

How dare a Christian speak Christian views  in public!  How dare a Christian have such views!   So it is that the  profoundly Left wing and anti free speech fascistic  Anti-Defamation League spreads its propaganda to protect its rules of its speech control, Political Correctness.

Headline at MSNBC is “New Governor Rejects Non-Christians”

Jay Reeves of Associate Press writes the following article which excited  folks at MSNBC  to signal alarm:

“BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned whether he can be fair to non-Christians.

“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother,” Bentley said Monday, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News.

The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called Bentley’s remarks shocking.

“His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor,” said Bill Nigut, the ADL’s regional director.

Speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony, Bentley told the crowd that he considered anyone who believed in Jesus to be his brothers and sisters regardless of color, but anyone who isn’t a Christian doesn’t have that same relationship to him.

  1. Related content
    1. Read Gov. Robert Bentley’s entire inaugural address
    2. Governor Bentley ends gambling task force
    3. Bentley keeps 158-year-old Alabama tradition alive
    4. Southern Baptist leader nixes yoga for Christians

“If the Holy Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,” Bentley said.

After his speech, Bentley said he did not mean to insult anyone.”

Michael Moore on TV……Analyzes American Violence, Gun Ownership

Michael Moore personifies the American Left, in body, mind and wisdom.   When he speaks America should listen to this man of the left and his assumptions, conclusions and wisdom.   M & M spoke on Martin Luther King day, interviewed by Rachel Mddow.

The following video accompanies the comments below found at HotAir:

“Yes, this is in regards to the Arizona shootings but, to be fair to Michael Moore, hes basically been saying this same thing his entire career. You can check out his full line of reasoning, if you can call it that, here. But basically he starts off his brilliant diatribe by claiming that most guns in the US are in areas with very little gun violence. This is, of course, true. However, Moore takes no time to stop and consider exactly why this is true.

You see, to Moore this is true simply because these areas are suburban or rural or something. I guess. He can’t fathom a connection between gun ownership by law abiding Americans and reduced crime rates. It’s astounding.

Anyway, pointing to the low crime rates Moore then asks why people in areas like Tucson want guns? After all these places with all these guns are super safe so why would you want to own such an incredibly dangerous thing like a gun in any of these completely safe areas with lots of guns since, you know, guns are crazy dangerous and stuff.

The answer to that incredibly astute question is this:


Looking into Liberal Hate Asking………”Why So Much Lefty Hate?”

Connecticut gal, Emily Bazelon at Slate headlines her today’s  article about Joe Lieberman….”WHY I LOATHE JOE LIEBERMAN!”   

Usually Lefties deny hating…..they consider themselves too tolerant to hate.   They   blame conservatives and  conservative  religions for hating.    Since in Marxism everyone would be forced to be  equal, lefties believe hate would disappear.

Personally, I have never been fond of Senator Lieberman, but I never have found him greasy as I do when viewing or listening to Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank,  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, Al Franken, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Geraldo Rivera,  and others nearly all  Leftists, and , to be forthright, the president most of the time, but not always.   In the old days Ted Kennedy would be near the  top on the slime list.

Those on the list are ones who glory in their mendacity.  Pure and constant in their ability not only to avoid truth, but to smear it.   They have agendas married to self interest….to hell with America, honest problem solving, honest anything.    I see them as crooks stealing words and meaning to cause confusion intentionally  to direct focus upon themselves and away from those  striving sincerely to problem solve.

They are the worst in Washington and set a standard making deceit appear honorable and so,  acceptable.  Most are Democrats because Democrats  sell divide and conquer to susceptible groups in the culture preaching to them to hate America and certain Americans for their ‘victimhood’ …..They exploit and invent conditions….conditions allegedly caused by evil  Republicans……and censor language and action by the rules  of  Leftwing  Political Correctness any challenges to their lies and deceit to help perpetuate their plantation culture of victimhoods voters.

I anticipated before reading this article about loathing Joe, that the complainer would be a lefty…..And, she is…..for she writes at Slate, and it is likely Joe Liebermand isn’t very high on the lists of conservatives for anything notable, good or bad.

Here is a confession of hate ….from the pen of leftwinger, Emily Bazelon:   “WHY I LOATHE JOE LIEBERMAN!”

“My corner of Connecticut was covered in ice today, until news broke of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s impending retirement. Magically, a warm glow spread. It was a delicious feeling: the end of the reign of the politician I despise most.

Why do I loathe, loathe, loathe my 68-year-old four-term senator? My feelings are all the stronger for being fairly irrational. Lieberman’s views are closer to mine than many politicians on whom I don’t expend one iota of emotional energy. This, of course, is his power: He never loses his power to disappoint. Then there is the spectacle of it all: After each act of grand or petty betrayal, each time he turns on his former supporters, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration came back begging for more. Throughout the last Congress, he never let anyone forget he was the 60th vote.

It wasn’t always so, at least not to me. When I first moved to Connecticut in 1989, during Lieberman’s first term, he seemed entirely unobjectionable. In 1998, after I moved here to the state a second time, I went to hear him speak. In 2001, I wrote a respectful piece for the Washington Post (I can’t find it online) about how Lieberman’s observance of Jewish law, as Al Gore’s running mate, had offered a welcome means for thinking about the accommodation of religious differences. What was I thinking? How did I miss the sanctimony beneath the kippah? As my friend Caleb puts it, “Even when he was a good liberal Democrat (coming up through the state legislature and as attorney general in the ’70s and ’80s, for example), it was driven, I am sure, by opportunism rather than conviction.”

Another friend, Judy Chevalier, burned up her iPad tonight when I asked her to enumerate why she hates Joe Lieberman. She ticked off a half-dozen reasons and then said, “The thing is, I did not come up with most of these myself. They come from many rounds of playing the peculiar Connecticut liberal cocktail party game ‘I hated Joe Lieberman before you hated Joe Lieberman.’ ” Longtime Lieberman haters, she says, look all the way back to 1993, when Lieberman led a hedge-fund-friendly charge in the Senate against the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which at the time wanted to close the accounting loophole that let corporations duck the recording of stock options on their balance sheets.

More old-timer liberal grudges against Lieberman: He denounced Bill Clinton in 1998 over Monica Lewinsky, a gift to the president’s enemies. He selfishly held on to his Senate seat in 2000 when he ran with Gore; if they’d won, Lieberman’s replacement would have been appointed by a Republican governor. A creative grudge from Caleb: Lieberman failed to bury Dick Cheney in the vice-presidential debate in 2000 because “he clearly had no interest in showing the public what kind of leader Cheney really would be.” Judy points out that in 2006, Lieberman opposed an effort to require all hospitals, including Catholic ones, to make the morning after pill available to rape victims. He said glibly, “In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.”

On to the more familiar recent history: Lieberman’s unrequited, unquenchable love for the Iraq war. (All the more misguided if, as my friend David thinks, Lieberman saw his hawkishness as in the service of Israel and Jewish identity in America.) His romance with John McCain, which won him a speaking role at the 2008 Republican National Convention. His irritating, me-me-me flirtation with caucusing with the Republicans after he lost his Democratic primary to Ned Lamont and then won the 2006 general election running as an Independent.

In 2009, it was Lieberman who held the health care bill hostage so he could kill the Democrats’ proposal to let people get health insurance coverage by buying into Medicare—even though, as Ezra Klein points out, he’d endorsed the same proposal months earlier. Ezra calls Lieberman “erratic and seemingly unprincipled” during the health care debate but then gives him credit for delivering one of the handful of swing votes that allowed the bill to pass. I am not willing to be so forgiving. Should his vote have been so hard to get? Was this all about pleasing the Connecticut insurance companies? And then there’s more: In July, Lieberman swaggered about a possible U.S. strike against Iran. In September, he was the one leading the way toward extending the Bush tax cuts for every last millionaire. This brings back the memory of the kiss George Bush gave him at the 2005 State of the Union address.

And then, most infuriating of all, Lieberman ended the last Congress by doing something good. He resurrected the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate last month. Afterward he said, “America became an even greater and stronger country today.” I couldn’t agree more. On Salon, Alex Pareene said that it was still OK to hate Joe Lieberman, but for a moment, I wobbled. Would I have to forgive Lieberman, however grudgingly?

The answer is no. Pareene stiffened my spine by bringing up one sin I’d forgotten: After the arrest of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, Lieberman proposed a bill that would have automatically stripped Americans of citizenship for being charged—not convicted—with a terrorist act. Add that one to the list. And surely I’ve left out various Lieberman lows you should alert me to in the comments.

Dave Weigel says that Lieberman could not have won a fifth term in 2012 because at 31 percent last October, his approval ratings were too low. Maybe so, but now I realize I’ve missed my chance to vote against him. My friend Leslie says that her vote for him in the primaries in 2006 is the vote she regrets most; I wasn’t living in Connecticut that year. Even Lieberman’s retirement announcement is an irritant. I’ll never get to throw the bum out.”

Comment:   Progressives progressing toward Marxism have little time for side shows based on reality, honesty, and real problem solving.   Most are hysterical in their devotion to their faith in Progress to Marxism.  This gives them religion and government all in one drive.

One certainly can’t accuse Emily Bazelon and  her lefty colleagues  of  cluttering her hates with  much depth.   Marxism, after all isn’t very deep.  It has attracted illiterates for nearly two centuries.

Marxism is a religion and way of government which never requires depth…..It stirs  hysteria and eventually demands obedience…..once Utopia is in control.

NCPA’s Ten Necessary Changes In ObamaCare to Correct the Flaws

Repeal and Replace: 10 Necessary Changes

The National Center for Policy Analysis and four other think tanks are conducting a Capitol Hill briefing today to discuss 10 structural flaws in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The briefing will be shown live on C-SPAN at noon Eastern.  Below are five of the 10 flaws and solutions.

An impossible mandate.

  • The ACA requires individuals to buy a health insurance plan whose cost will grow at twice the rate of growth of their incomes.
  • Solution: Repeal the individual and employer mandates and offer a generous tax subsidy to people to obtain insurance.

A bizarre system of subsidies.

  • The ACA offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance.
  • Solution: Offer people the same tax relief for health insurance, regardless of where it is obtained or purchased.

Perverse incentives for insurers.

  • The ACA creates perverse incentives for insurers and employers to attract the healthy and avoid the sick, and to overprovide to the healthy and underprovide to the sick (to encourage them to leave).
  • Solution: Instead of requiring insurers to ignore the fact that some people are sicker and more costly to insure than others, adopt a system that compensates them for the higher expected costs.

Impossible benefit cuts for seniors.

  • By 2020, Medicare nationwide will pay doctors and hospitals less than what Medicaid pays.
  • Solution: Medicare cost increases can be slowed by empowering patients and doctors to find efficiencies and eliminate waste.

Lack of portability.

  • The single biggest health insurance problem for most Americans is the lack of portability.
  • Solution: 1) Allow employers to do something they are now barred from doing: purchase personally-owned, portable health insurance for their employees; 2) Give retirees the same tax relief now available only to employees; and 3) Allow employers and employees to save for postretirement care in tax-free accounts.

Source: John C. Goodman, “What Most Needs Repealing and Replacing,” National Center for Policy Analysis, January 17, 2011.

For text:


from the National Center for Policy Analysis

Redistricting Texas…..Will Repubicans Seize the Opportunity?

Ruben Navarette, Jr. wrote the following at Pajamas Media:

“I love the redistricting process. Sure, it can be corrupt, unseemly, and full of sharp elbows. But it also brings something we don’t get enough of in politics: clarity.

Specifically, it clarifies the exact relationship between Latinos and the Democratic Party.

For the rest of the decade, America’s largest minority can go around telling itself that Democrats have its best interests at heart. And where would they get that idea? It’s partly from tradition; the “Viva Kennedy” clubs that popped up during the 1960 campaign represented the first time that a presidential campaign made a direct effort to reach out to Latino voters. And it’s partly because Democrats still make a habit of promising Latino voters the moon and stars to get their votes, even if they rarely get around to delivering.

But during redistricting, it becomes clear that Democrats only care about their own interests.

It’s a role reversal. Nine times out of ten, it’s Republicans who misbehave, play politics, and selfishly put their interests ahead of the interests of Latinos. That’s how it is with immigration, English-only laws, bilingual education, affirmative action, and other ethnic and cultural hot-button issues.

Welcome to the tenth time — where Democrats misbehave, play politics, and selfishly put their interests ahead of the interests of Latinos. That’s how it is with that once-in-a-decade ritual known as congressional redistricting.

Every ten years, we conduct a Census where we get a rough — sometimes very rough — count of how many people live in the United States and who lives where. Once we have that information, we can reapportion the seats in the House of Representatives so that money and representation goes where it is needed.

The 2010 Census figures are now starting to roll in. They show us that there are approximately 308.7 million people in the United States — and that a big chunk of them live in Texas. The population of the Lone Star State is growing faster than that of any other state. This means that Texas will get more House seats than any other state: four.

The other winners in the census lottery include Florida, which picked up two new seats in Congress. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Utah, South Carolina, and Washington all picked up one extra seat. (It is a bleaker story in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Massachusetts, which lost seats.) In Texas, the job of carving out those four new districts will fall to the members of the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. Naturally, they’re going to want to carve out those districts in a way that is advantageous to their party, just as Democrats are going to want the same.

Here’s where it gets tricky. There is no question that much of the growth in the Texas population over the last ten years is due to the growth of the Hispanic population in the state. In fact, demographers say that more than half of the growth in Texas is due to Hispanics. That means that Hispanics are likely to claim that one, and possibly two, of the new seats should be majority-Hispanic — increasing the chances of electing one or two Hispanic representatives.

Now, here’s a pop quiz. Which party do you suppose is more likely to go along with the demand for Hispanic districts?

Democrats? Incorrect. The best scenario for Democrats in a state like Texas is to sprinkle the Hispanic population across several districts — say 30 to 40 percent Hispanic in each district. Because Hispanics tend to be dependable voters for Democrats, that would ensure the election of Democrats — and probably white Democrats — in multiple districts.
Republicans? Correct. The best scenario for the GOP is to concentrate Latinos into one or two majority-Latino districts that are as much as 70 percent Latino. That all but ensures that Latino Democrats will represent those districts. And packing Latino Democrats into one district leaves the handful of districts that surround that district mostly white and Republican.

Under that scenario, Latinos get what they want (majority-Latino districts where they can elect their own) and Republicans get what they want (more overall districts that stay in the “red” column). Those are strange bedfellows.

So who loses? Answer: White Democrats. So they’ll fight — first in the legislature, and eventually in court. That’s just what they did in 1990 and 2000, when this same dynamic played out. And in doing so, they’ll go head-to-head with the same Latino community that they claim to champion.

The result: clarity.”

The Constitution and The Ignorance of Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee

I wonder where Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee,  (B.A. Yale. J.D. University of Virginia)  collected  the notions of her special entitlements guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.  She certainly has the “entitlement”  noun memorized, suggesting she might be a member of the plantation culture from an inner city one Party rule “entitlement” culture.

Her ignorance is well documented.    In case you have forgotten Sheila Jackson Lee  made herself famous for her “Vietnam two-state  co-operation speech” from the House floor.   Click here to review the ignorance she shared with her world:  http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/is-sheila-jackson-lee-really-that-stupid

She has quite a listing of silly words attributed to her ‘thinking’.  I list a few here: 

1.  “Republicans have failed to pass a long-term highway bill, failed to end costly trade sanctions on U.S. goods, failed to enact tax cuts for U.S. manufacturers, and failed to end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, even with a 1.7 million private sector job deficit.”

2.  “”Brown vs. Board of Education might have been (considered) frivolous.  I don’t want a law that says you can’t go into a courthouse.”

3.  By virtually any measure, the record of the Republican Majority is an appalling failure.
Sheila Jackson Lee

4.  Many of us in Congress have been calling on the Administration to articulate a bold mission for NASA. It seems that the President is answering that call. I wholeheartedly support his vision for going back to the moon, and from there to worlds beyond.
5.  Sheila Jackson Lee

6.  Marching with over a million women in support of our reproductive rights was one of the most empowering things I have done, both as a woman and as a Member of Congress.
Sheila Jackson Lee

7. to 100.   Google them up on the internet.

The following is an article at HotAir by Allahpundit with a video of Ms. Lee’s view of  our Constitution’s coverage:

Via Philip Klein, I can’t decide whether she’s serious or whether this is part of the Democrats’ new kitchen-sink approach to “messaging” about ObamaCare. She might be calculating that even an argument as inane as this one is worth making in order to counter the GOP’s claims that O-Care is unconstitutional. If you’re battling over public opinion, why not frame the other side’s actions as being as illegitimate as your own? So on the one hand, maybe she doesn’t really buy this and is simply engaged in a shrewd bit of PR. On the other hand — dude.

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process,” she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. “That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.

She continued, “Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?”

Jackson Lee mentioned the names of several people who she said would be helped by the national health care law, including a schizophrenic, a dialysis patient, and somebody whose mother cannot otherwise get dental care. “I know they would question why we are taking away their rights,” she said.

Thus do nine-month-old legislatively-granted entitlements, some of which haven’t even taken effect yet, become “rights.” If you take this idea seriously, then meaningful reform of Social Security and Medicare (which Lee presumably would describe as property for Due Process purposes) would require constitutional amendments, which in turn would utterly paralyze a process that’s already close to total paralysis. Or have I misunderstood? If she’s suggesting that some lesser process is due than a full Article V amendment, then, er, shouldn’t a repeal bill duly enacted by Congress suffice? Or is the argument here that people with preexisting conditions, say, have always had a right to coverage under the Constitution and only lately have we “progressed” to the point where we’re willing to recognize that right? In that case, why’d they have to pass a bill last year? Patients should have simply sued and let the courts “find” a right to coverage in the “penumbras” of the Commerce Clause or whatever.

Click here for the video of this Shiela Jackson Lee verbal moment of wisdom regarding the Constitution:


Connecticut Democrat, Susan Bysiewicz, Was Ruled Ineligible to Run for State Attorney General in 2010….WHY?

The point of this article was not the news that Joe Lieberman would not be running for reelection in 2012.  Nor was it to advance any idea  that I might have some special information  about the upcoming Connecticut Senate race.

I do not.

I came across and  article   written by Aaron Blake at the Washington Post.  I have selected a portion of the article which I strongly believe includes a proceeding which should be  a violation of  a citizen’s equal right  to hold elected office.    Read the portion of the article what I have excerpted below.   See if you agree.

Mr. Blake writes:

Bysiewicz also holds a slight lead in a three-way general-election matchup with Lieberman and 2010 GOP Senate nominee Linda McMahon, taking 34 percent to 30 percent for Lieberman and 28 percent for McMahon.

Issue is she didn’t qualify for Attorney General

 Bysiewicz has long been seen as a top candidate, but the events of the last year have hurt her political stock in the state, at least in the minds of some Connecticut Democrats.

Bysiewicz was the clear frontrunner in the state’s open governor’s race in 2010, but she unexpectedly dropped out and opted to run for attorney general when then-attorney general Richard Blumenthal decided to run for Senate.

Before the Democratic primary though, the state Supreme Court ruled that Bysiewicz didn’t have the required experience as a practicing lawyer, and she was ruled ineligible to run for the office. (Whoops!)

Even those who note her stumbles, though, say she remains viable.

“She’s very aggressive, very smart woman, got a lot of guts and I guess is determined to get back into public life, so it will make it very interesting,” said Lieberman adviser John Droney.

It’s not yet clear what Lieberman will announce Wednesday. After losing the Democratic primary in 2006, though, it seems unlikely he would want to face another contested primary.  (Again….It was announced today the Joe Liebermand would not be running for reelection in 2012.)

Please explain why an  American citizen of Connecticut  or any state which might have   restrictions for candidacy for  state’s office of attorney general’s office or any other office beyond residency and age and criminal record, can be ruled ineligible?  

I presume, and it is presuming, that some kind of law eduation  background might be required….Why?

A law or any other degree should never be  required of a candidate running  for political office.   NEVER.  

Most of America’s  Congressmen are and have been for a long time possessors of a law degree…..or of some law education.    It has been a curse to our democracy.   Dennis Prager constantly bemoans that the United States, having educated its way away from common sense and wisdom is committing suicide by lawing itself to death.

The present American courts systems stink from the games played by con artists of the degreed lawyer  world.   Why are these folks trained to be deceptive and dishonest, have privileges for  public office above the voting citizen?

“Before the Democratic primary though, the state Supreme Court ruled that Bysiewicz didn’t have the required experience as a practicing lawyer, and she was ruled ineligible to run for the office.”