About Me

Name: AfterShock
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Coming To America

Posted by AfterShock on Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:46:56 AM
Euro-style thought police are coming to America via the Obama administration and the Hillary led state department. Regarding the efforts of radio talk host Michael Savage to be removed from Britain's list of haters, which banned him from entering Britain, the Hillary led U.S. State Department responded by siding with the British position that some political speech should be banned and in some cases punishable as a crime.  That response from the State Department clearly reflects the larger effort of the White House to cut conservative talk radio off from the advertising revenue which keeps it so prominently "on the air".  

The Obama administration takes the position that conservative political speech, at least that which opposes their agenda, is dangerous to liberals generally and to the safety of the President himself.  These far-left talking points regarding freedom of political speech, have been out there for months now. But the State Department's response to Savage's complaint against the British for blacklisting him as a "promoter of hate"  leaves one to wonder whether the Obama administration is attempting to criminalize ordinary political speech against the government.  In the Soviet Union, those who spoke out against the communist agenda were considered mentally unstable and sent to the gulags, or worse.  Will we see such "retraining" camps in America?  

We'd better take a close look at the 2000 pages of legalese in the Democrat's Health-care Reform bill. Death panel enabling language has been found, so perhaps the ability to define anti-liberal anti-Obama political speech as a mental disorder, requiring commitment of the perpetrator(s), will emerge and result in the loss of livelihood or freedom for conservative talk radio hosts, as well as their oft outspoken listeners.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Healthcare: the Coming Marxist Police State

Posted by AfterShock on Friday, November 13, 2009 11:56:00 PM
When I was young(er), dumb(er) and far more excited, NO not yesterday, the term "police state" was tossed around by just about every dope smokin "head" or "freak" in high school and on college campus. The thing was, man, the uber-paranoid drug-abusing establishment-hating hippie counterculture types were sure the "pigs" (not the one's presently in the WH) were comin to bust 'em for holding this drug or that drug, which of course they were using as a matter of their constitutional right (as self determined). Hence the oft repeated phrase "we're livin in a police state man".  Just imagine Tommy Chong's voice and you'll get the picture. The irony is, that it's the 60's/70's hip counterculture, i.e. far left dope-smokin drug-holdin Marxists, that be presently in charge and what are creatin that much affeared police state, fer-real! And they're doin it, just like a line of blow, right under our noses -- wow, (sniffle, sniffle, expectorate) far-out man.  

The Pelosi-Obama health care package now being rammed up our collective seat cushions is chock full of police-state enforcement provisions. In fact as I've stated before, I believe that's what's really at stake. The bill is so outlandish as it stands that any number of compromises, which will be forthcoming regardless what Pelosi or the WH say now, are going to seem monumental. BEWARE! The Senate is about to do their part in this latest installment of "good cop/bad cop". In committee and eventually in House/Senate negotiations the majority will give in on a few conservative and republican hot button issues, and in so doing they'll rrrrreeeach across that big 'ol bipartisan aisle to collect just enough of the Lieberman, Snowe and McCain type votes needed to get the deal done, which includes the so called blue dogs. But the police-state provisions -- the mandatory coverage, public plan and enforcement provisions -- are the real purpose of the legislation. Mitt Romney and the many other House and Senate republicans agreeing that everyone ought to be required to have health insurance just like they're required to have auto insurance, have created this nightmare for us. Thanks guys.

Enforcement provisions include standard IRS levied fines and penalties as well as possible imprisonment for failure to present proof of health insurance to Big-Brother-All-Mighty, aka the "Federal" Government. Can you imagine not having the money in this economy to afford food and gasoline let alone health care premiums (which by the way are being encouraged upward by the Obama Admin's anti-market, anti-competitive regulatory policies), and being forced onto a public plan?  That's why they need the "public option".  Even if the public option gets watered down with innocuous language, the actual terms by which a public plan will be created and defined will be burried somewhere in the bill's fine print, to be summoned forth as necessary. They need the public plan 'cause they need a reservation upon which to place those who can not afford or that will refuse to buy any insurance mandated by government.  This is a legalized power grab unprecedented in civilized history. AND IF they can be so bold as to attempt a coup d' etat of such magnitude right under our noses, then what makes anyone think they -- Pelosi, Reed, Obama and company -- ever intend to relinquish the reigns of power just because of a little old election cycle - hmmm?

I predict we're gonna see some hellified political horse tradin in the weeks to come.  After all Nancy Pelosi says she wants to give us the, ehrr - uhmm "health-care" package -- all wrapped up with flashy seasonal paper and red ribbons tied in a bow -- for Christmas! Now that's one surgically enhanced aging beach that's been takin the Lord's name in vane fer sure man. What we must expose for the Nation to see is not per se the mandatory coverage provision of their health care plan, what needs to be brought to the attention of every American is that to accomplish such an outrageous and egregious provision under threat of fines and imprisonment, means they can regulate our lives under threat of punishment for any reason that can be related to the health and general welfare of the ObamaNation. Now that's a police-state man!  So if it's war they want... well, because the meaning of war is somewhat subjective these days, you can fill in the next line.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder

Posted by AfterShock on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:49:19 PM

Then which one is it? The following definitions were derived, paraphrased and condensed from on-line sources including Websters, Wikipedia, Scientific American and others. 

The Sociopath is: a person not concerned with the rights or feelings of other people and tends toward risky behavior such as theft, drug use and sexual misconduct. They are artful liars easily able to mislead people. They display little or no remorse for the damage they cause others. They react impulsively in stressful situations. They don't consider how their words or deeds might harm others and seem to be aloof, disconnected from the seriousness and  implications of their actions. They have little respect for authority and as children are often the type of expelled from school. Sociopaths commonly have drug and alcohol problems.

Let's try the Psychopath... 

The psychopath is: often glib and superficially charming. A psychopath is very adept at making a good first impression. He or she will seem remarkably normal at first glance. However upon further review, one generally finds the psychopath to be self-centered, dishonest and irresponsible.  They are often impulsive as well as irrational. They are manipulative and display aggressive narcissism. They have a grandiose sense of their own self worth compared to that of other people. They are good actors but display no real guilt, empathy or love for others. Their interpersonal and romantic relationships are often cold or business-like. Their actions can be reckless and outrageous, but when criticized, others get the blame. They tend to be cold, cunning and calculating. They seldom if ever learn from their mistakes, nor do they benefit or necessarily desire to benefit from negative feedback. They may engage in substance abuse and  like the sociopath may have had behavioral problems as a child. They are pathological liars, emotionally shallow and do not take personal responsibility for their actions. Psychopaths often lack realistic long-term goals. Though they are not normally violent, they may tend towards criminal behavior. 

Hmmm, it sounds sooo familiar. Very Barack'ish.

Let me see now which group of Americans is it? Is it the liberal or the conservative?  I guess in a morally relative world, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. But in an objective world, the one in which conservatives strive to live, any individual regardless political persuasion could fall into this category, but the ones that fit most precisely into the definition of psychopath happen to be neo-liberal politicians. Fortunately, being a psychopath is a treatable condition. 

Except in Iran or by Muslim-terrorist-military-psychiatrists on jihad in America.

 

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Statutes Are Not Stand-Alone Law

Posted by AfterShock on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:46:16 AM

Over the years I've had many a discussion regarding how a bill becomes a statute and how the statute becomes law. Most recently a discussion along those lines involved HR 3200, the so called health care reform bill.  The debater's primary point was why all the fuss over the Democrat's health care plans when there isn't even a bill ready to be passed? Obviously because it's important to prevent a potentially harmful bill from being assembled let alone being passed and here's why in a nutshell: One seldom finds specificity in a raw statute. In today's uber-partisan political atmosphere (I'm a partisan), the statute is often little more than a congressional means to an executive branch end. "party" politics are in play and in order to provide maximum flexibility to the party in control of the executive branch, statutes are constructed in nebulous terms.  Federal courts define statutory language as "broad authorizing language" which can seem innocuous to the untrained reader.  Politicians love hiding behind the vagueness of a bill's artfully crafted language because it allows them to claim provisions feared by their opponents don't really appear in the legislation. 

Unfortunately, a statute, even after being passed by the house and senate, and signed by the president, is not stand alone law. In order to become an enforcible law, needful and specific implementing regulations must be promulgated by the appropriate executive branch department. That's where the true nature of a bill becomes evident. Without "implementing" regulations written and published in the Federal Register, a statute lacks the required specificity to pass constitutional muster. Congress delegates authority to promulgate regulations to the proper executive branch department. In the case of the health care bill HR 3200 for instance, responsibility would be delegated to: 1. the Secretary of HHS; and 2. the Secretary of the Treasury, which in turn delegates specific enforcement authority to the commissioner of the IRS. 

The Secretary has  broad powers to interpret the authorizing language and congressional intent of the statute and then to implement it in whatever way suits the public policy goals of the administration.  Hence, it is unlikely anyone will know the so called unintended consequences of a legislative enactment until it's too late to do anything about it.  And that's why sweeping legislation such as the health care reform act causes so much consternation and alarm.  It's too vague, too broad and leaves too much to our faith or "trust" in the agencies authorized to implement it.  One might look at the bill HR 3200 and say, well there's no specific reference to Death Panels for instance. True, yet the implication exists and there is no prohibition against the creation of such an entity; which means the Secretary of HHS at the behest of the POTUS could interpret the raw statute to find that intent and, by writing specific regulations, could implement the pertinent part of the statute to enable the creation of a panel commissioned to accomplish that policy goal. All without further authorization from congress.  

One can see why the character and politics of those who advise the president on policy matters and of those whom he appoints to implement policy is so important to know.  There are at minimum three policy czars that would have direct input on health care and two are known for their radical positions and statements. Do you really want radical policy Czars like Cass Sunstein or John Holdren involved in the implementation of health care policy? Nancy Ann De Parle was appointed by Katherine Sebelius to fill the role of health reform czar.  These are unelected but very powerful people.  How a statute is interpreted and implemented is affected by their input. And then there's Sebelius herself.  A death panel of one when it  comes to abortion rights.  One has to read the tea leaves , connect some dots, read between the lines, anticipate the consequences of a bill's passage, because the damage done to our health care system once the bill is passed into law will actually be caused by implementing regulations promulgated in the executive branch to carry out policy, and by then it will be too late.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder

Posted by AfterShock on Saturday, August 01, 2009 7:19:01 AM

Events depicted in  this post are true. Only the names have been changed to. . .

I just realized that the radical left with its god the Earth,  it's high priests like AlGore, and it's own King and would-be Messiah  Obama, is missing just one thing to complete their vision of an  ancient Central American type great society: Human sacrifice.   Surely I jest you say.  Well let me tell ya a wee little story  about a man named er, ah Bob yeah that's it, Bob.  Bob is an Obama  radical - sympatico to the core.  He is also a teacher at a privately  owned music shop. The owner of the store is my friend ah, umm  Mike, yeah Mike, that'll do... At any rate Bob and Mike have known  each other for years.  Now it's no secret that in the music biz  one is apt to find lots of left leaning to radical left liberals.   Just a fact.  But store owners because they are small businessmen  or wo men are very often Conservatives.  and for the record, many professional  musicians that make a living jobbing gigs or whom themselves are  small biz owners have come to the light of conservatism as well.   But nothing close to a majority.

Anyhow, after that digression,  here's the deal.  We friends of the owner -er, ah Mike - all like  to gather at his music shop after hours once a week as a little  social thing.  Actually the atmosphere there is a lot like a barber  shop as depicted in the movie of that same name. The liberals in  the store are included and we've had a number of spirited arguments  and debate -- classic left right stuff -- over the years.  But  some lefties are extremely offended by this socializing.  Bob  is of course of that persuasion and shames the other left leaning employees  or friends of the owner for participating.  One day the store owner  errrr-Mike, was having a brief conversation with Bob, the radical lefty  teacher who rents a studio there,  when all of a sudden Bob out of  the blue said to Mike: I know what you're all about, then proceeded to  tell him that what was wrong with the world is that conservatives exist  at all, that in fact he'd be happy to see them (conservatives) put  to death.  Now that might have been humorous if not for how deadly serious  this guy is.  


I'm not so sure his brand of liberal  hate is all that rare.  In fact as Savage says, liberalism IS  a mental illness and I wouldn't d oubt in the perfect society envisioned  by the likes of radical Bob, that conservatives would make the  perfect human sacrifice to appease their god the Earth.  Is that  such a stretch?  Isn't that pretty much what Islamic terrorists  plan to do to infidels as we refuse to submit to alah?  We must  not place our faith in civilized society, as people within that  society that believe in death to the infidel and death to the conservative  are anything but civil.  They are possessed by demons we can't  understand.  But we may need to understand them in order to resist  and fight back.

Events depicted in this post are true.  Only the names have been changed to. . .

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »