Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Obama's Socialist Agenda’ Category

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to have the government regulate the Internet?

Answer: Introducing… Net Neutrality!

What is this? The federal government (under one of America’s most radical presidents) wants to regulate and put a stranglehold on another area of the free-market? No way! …Unfortunately, I am not surprised at all by this.

Last week, three Democrats on the FCC passed their horrid net neutrality law. The idea of Net Neutrality is not a new concept, but I thought the video – from Reason – would help you better understand the concept:

Net Neutrality is a proposed set of regulatory powers that would grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to control how Internet service providers (ISPs) package their services. Proponents argue that such rules are necessary to ensure that ISPs treat all data on the Internet equally and don’t slow or even restrict access to various websites and other parts of the Internet.

However well-intentioned, the practical effect will be to limit consumer choice and grant the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet, all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Indeed, examples of the behavior that Net Neutrality will combat are few and far between.

What’s even more horrendous? The FCC went ahead and did this against the will of the American people (of course):

American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television.

Here is my message to that 21% who want Net Neutrality: You and the FCC can stay the hell out of my Web browser! David Harsanyi says it best: Why would we want a prehistoric bureaucracy overseeing one of the past century’s great improvements?

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the 111th United States Congress?

Answer: They added more debt during its tenure than the first 100 Congresses combined!

CNS News reports:

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

[...]

Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

Bravo Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Democrats!

It truly takes a talented bunch of Democrats to get incredibly intoxicated with power, grab the federal government credit card (paid for by the taxpayers), and spend it irresponsibly like Preston Waters in the movie Blank Check.

Exit Question: Hey Democrats, what ever happened to PAYGO? You know… The so-called budgetary tool you guys designed to stop deficit spending?

Bring in the next Congress, please.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the DREAM Act this afternoon?

Answer: It failed 55-41 on a procedural cloture vote to end the filibuster!

This is great news for America, because this disastrous piece of legislation will not be brought to the Senate floor to be voted on.

Politico reports:

The decade-old DREAM Act once again failed to break a filibuster in the Senate on Saturday morning, effectively killing the bill this year and shutting the door on what perhaps was the last cdhance for pro-immigration reform legislation until at least the 2012 election.

Senate Democrats came up five votes short of the 60 needed to advance the House-passed bill, which would provide a path to citizenship for up to illegal immigrants brought to the country as children if they attend college or join the military for two years. The 55-41 vote was mostly along party lines, though a handful of Democrats — perhaps fearful of their 2012 election outlook — also voted against the DREAM Act.

As I have said before, do not be fooled by the name of this bill. The real goal of the DREAM Act is to provide amnesty for those who chose to enter our country illegally and make it even harder to enforce our immigration laws.

One of my friends said it best, “Welcome to America, please use front door… Okay, thanks.”

VICTORY:

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico?

Answer: Steven Crowder finds more than just a bunch of climate change wing-nuts.

Steven Crowder is back!

Enjoy the global warming alarmists’ hypocrisy… And the hippie flippin’ the bird to the video camera.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the Democrat’s 2,000 page omnibus spending bill?

Answer: Besides the $1.1 TRILLION price tag, the bill is laced with approximately $8.3 BILLION worth of earmarks.

6,714 earmarks to be exact! The Heritage Foundation reports:

The Senate omnibus bill’s offenses go well beyond its overall cost and size. It would spend more than $1 billion to begin implementing the unpopular and unaffordable Obamacare law, which a federal court has ruled unconstitutional. The bill also includes a number of anti-energy policies that make it unnecessarily difficult to tap into America’s domestic energy supply, wastes $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on climate change initiatives, and defunds activities for vital nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain.

And, in what has become a grand holiday tradition, the Senate stuffed the bill with more than 6,000 earmarks. [...] While fully funding Obamacare and earmarks, the Senate once again failed to find to room to adequately fund defense. This risks leaving our troops ill prepared to defend the nation at home and abroad.

There is no wonder why Congress’ job approval rating is at an all-time low this week. After getting absolutely dominated in the midterm elections last month, the Democrats have decided to blatantly ignore the American people and continue with their high spending, radical agenda.

Click here to access Sen. Coburn’s (R-OK) database of all the earmarks included in the omnibus spending bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s hope that this enormous omnibus spending bill fails. If the bill ends up being passed, it will prevent the next Congress from making crucial spending cuts until fiscal year 2012. America cannot afford this and I mean that in more ways than one.

*UPDATE* – December 17, 2010 – 1:04 PM

Hate him or love him, one has to admire Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) stance against earmarks. Check out this latest video of Sen. McCain attacking the “pork” in Washington D.C.:

Good thing the Republicans claimed victory last night! Fortunately, in the words of James C. Capretta, the Democrats were unable to jam a $1 trillion–plus, 2,000-page, earmark-laden monstrosity through Congress!

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?

Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.

Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?

First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Debunked once again.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (D.R.E.A.M.) Act?

Answers: This devious piece of legislation was passed in the United States House of Representatives last night.

Do not be fooled by the name of this bill. The real goal of the DREAM Act is to provide amnesty for those who chose to enter our country illegally and make it even harder to enforce our immigration laws.

The Democrats are trying desperately to portray this disastrous piece of legislation as something that will benefit only children. Unfortunately, that is not true at all:

It will basically extend an amnesty to an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens who are as old as 35 or 30, depending on which version of DREAM you are looking at.  But because aliens granted citizenship under the DREAM Act could then sponsor their spouses, children, siblings, and parents, chain migration could result in triple that number of illegal aliens ultimately receiving amnesty and becoming citizens.

What is even more of a joke is the requirements of college and the Armed Forces in-order to secure amnesty for themselves (and potentially their entire family):

You only have to show that you completed two years of college to be entitled to amnesty – there is no requirement that you actually obtain a degree.

[...]

But even those requirements to complete two years of college education or uniformed service can be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, if the alien can demonstrate “compelling circumstances” and the alien’s removal would cause a hardship to the alien, his spouse, parents or children.  This is such a loose, wide-open standard that it is no standard at all.  Aliens are always going to claim it is a hardship for them and their families if they are removed from the United States, even if the hardship is of their own making when they showed such a disregard for our laws by illegally entering the country, illegally working, and, in many cases, obtaining fraudulent identification and other authorization documents.

Unfortunately, there are a lot more negative and potential unintended consequences buried inside this hideous piece of legislation. Overall, it is designed to encourage illegal activity and reward lawbreakers, while ignoring enforcement and border security.

Speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives last night, Democrats lined up to rattle off their key (but false) talking point: The DREAM Act is crucial, because it will help those who complete college or military service. Unfortunately, a majority of them failed to disclose the true details of this Nightmare Act and it passed… 216-198.

Democrats are not the only ones to blame. Here are the eight Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote yes for amnesty:

  • Joe Cao (defeated in the general election)
  • Mike Castle (defeated in the primary)
  • Lincoln Diaz-Balart (retiring)
  • Mario Diaz-Balart
  • Charles Djou (defeated in the general election)
  • Vern Ehlers (retiring)
  • Bob Inglis (defeated in the primary)
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ladies and gentlemen… That’s what the lame-duck session of congress will do.

Although last night’s final vote count was extremely disappointing, there is still light on the horizon: Passage in the U.S. Senate is unlikely.

For the sake of our country, let’s hope they are right and we are able to stop this Nightmare Act.

*UPDATE* – December 18, 2010 – 1:15 PM.

The DREAM Act cloture vote fails, 55-41! It will not be brought to the Senate floor to be voted on. VICTORY!

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers