Spending Cuts A Joke...A Very Bad Joke.

Just got the news, maybe I'm late, but this is an absolute joke.

House Republican leaders raised the stakes this week in a looming budgetary showdown, pledging to lift the target of entitlement cuts from $35 billion to $50 billion, impose across-the-board spending cuts and rescind spending already approved -- all to offset the cost of hurricane relief.

Looks good, right? Finally the Conservatives in the House are being what they swore they'd be. Look again. Note: across the board cuts. Across the board, that means that they scoured everything and found $50 billion to cut. With all the pork in the transportation bill, and every other bill that they've passed, we get $50 billion across the board.

The move, announced at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans Thursday night, would cut tens of billions of dollars from entitlement programs for the poor, such as Medicaid, but could touch virtually every aspect of government. House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) said he will insist that across-the-board cuts of up to 2 percent apply even to homeland security and defense programs, which had been exempted from previous budget-cutting measures.

Yes, Medicaid, National defense, homeland security...so far I see
zero in cuts for pork-barrel projects.

But House Republicans now seem driven by conservative constituents who are fed up with deficit spending and the relentless growth of government since President Bush came to office, House members and aides said. Lawmakers went home yesterday for a week-long break, and they expect to get an earful about the $70 billion in tax cuts and spending already approved in the wake of Katrina, said Sean Spicer, spokesman for the House Republican Conference.

"When our members go home, they'll hear from constituents, and it's going to be 'Spending, spending, spending -- what are you people doing?' " he said.

Of course they will. Congress has been spending us into the ground for years (more than 5) and just now they realize that those of us on the right are growing more and more frustrated and are only voting for them because they'll spend less than the other guys. The only problem they'll have now is that they'll be hearing "billions cut from homeland security, our boys and girls in the military...and there's still a bridge being built to Nowhere, Alaska."

"Things aren't going so well," one Senate leadership aide conceded.

Even in the House, leaders may have ordered up an across-the-board spending cut and a package of "rescissions" that would excise funds already allocated, but passage is anything but assured once the details emerge.

Well spoken by the aide. And they concede that they aren't likely to get this thing done.

To me, this is all a big show. Huge dollar ammounts being pledged by our "allies" on the right, all taken from necessary or semi necessary programs. It'll get shot down on the floor, and they'll say "We tried, but the obstructionists got in the way".

Cut some real unnecessary spending. Cut "non-essencial" offices. Stop Corprate Welfare. Then we'll talk. IMNHO, anyway.

On a side note, remember our pet project to help Stop the ACLU. Go on, Sign the petition...you know you wanna.

OK, lets Curb ACLU Fees.

By Wayne BoettcherPosted: 10/07/2005
I said the following in a previous column from December 17, 2004 called US vs. ACLU:Many pundits are now calling to "stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU" by preventing them from getting attorneys fees in legal cases they win against government. I disagree with this tactic. Often government entities do oppress their own citizens and must be sued, and when they lose, it's only right in many instances that they should pay the attorneys fees. I certainly would like them to pay for my attorney should I have to sue them and if I win!
But since we're dealing with the ACLU here, normalcy does not apply. Remember, many of their cases are not real legal cases such as you or I might have against the government. They are wacky, freaked out cases where there is no real damage to anyone, based on the idea that someone is "offended" by the sight of people being happy and exercising freedom of religion. Of course, you can always find somebody to be offended by something and most believe that the ACLU usually prepares their cases beforehand then goes out and finds an "offended" person, as I talked about in another previous column ACLU - ICU.
But I digress. I advocated in US vs. ACLU that these "Establishment Clause" cases should never be brought before the court at all, saying: In many of these instances, the ACLU clearly should have been fined instead for filing a frivolous lawsuit and the case dismissed! If that would occur, we wouldn't be worrying about lawyer fees! But that's not happening. The cases are going before courts and sometimes won by the ACLU.
.....from: American Protest.

In Response.

Yes, I am concerned that there are people like you walking
around free. People who have no respect for the rights of their neighbors.
People who are willing to condemn a person to spend the last few
days/weeks/months of their life in intolerable agony because they had the
misfortune to contract a disease or suffer an accident for which there is no
cure. People who feel their warped religious ideas are more important than their
neighbors suffering.

I have witnessed three friends/relatives die of
cancer. At the end, their pain was horrible, but in my state assisted suicide
was not an option. In their weakened state, they were unable to end their
suffering by themselves, so their pleas for release went unfulfilled. No caring
person could witness such suffering and still stand against assisted suicide.

If you feel that in a similar situation you would prefer suffering to
“sin,” that is your right. When you decide that others should suffer because of
your religious beliefs, that is entirely another matter. Stupid, sadistic idiots
like you should be isolated from the rest of humanity.

The above is from a comment left today on the dr. assisted suicide case now before the SCOTUS.
Now, in the spirit of clarification, I'll commence picking it apart. (and without one single mention of God, Christianity, my own personal sadistic tendencies, etc.!)

1) "people who have no respect for their neighbors." Being killed just because you feel like it is not a right. Not in America, anyways.
2)Some of those in my family have died from cancer as well, and I can tell you it would take a sick individual to wish that a loved one would hurry up and die. Rejoice that they are not suffering any longer.
3)"people who are willing to condemn a person to ....." Sorry, I have yet to condemn anyone. That (time and method of death) is now, and forever will be out of my hands.
4) Finally this person, "annonymous", seems to think that they have always had the right to have someone else off them if they are suffering, and now a bunch of Neo-con sadistic hate-mongers such as myself are trying to rip their rights right out from under them. Nope. Never was there. Just because an individual "wants" a certain right, say to do whatever they want whenever they want, doesn't make that right appear.
Again, Common sense.

The Death of Common Sense.

Well, folks, the American Civil Liberties Union is at it again. The very first case that our new Chief Justice, John Roberts, gets to hear is on an Oregon law allowing "doctor assisted suicide".
The ACLU, of course, is on the side of the society of death...the American Left. Some would argue that they are on the side of States' Rights, but that argument is useless to anyone with common sense. Reason being, the Constitution of the United States of America states:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;..." Declaration of
Independence

Note: right to LIFE. Nowhere does any legal document state that we have the right to die when and how we choose. It's just common sense, folks, plain as the nose on your face. You're going to die, get used to it.

I hate to be so tactless, but it's needs to be said.

The problem? Let's look at history. In Nazi Germany, under Hitler, those who were deemed "unfit for life" due to health problems or disabilities were euthanized. Grandma, baby sister, it didn't matter.
And it will happen here, too, if we're not careful. NEVER in the history of this great nation has enough been enough. Any right that we have leads to presumed rights which leads to outlandish claims of associated rights. To break it down, we allow Oregon to allow Physician Homicide and soon some Dr. does the euthanizing on his own...in his patients "best interest". Then questions of "what would grandma really want?" come into play. Trust me, a lot of people want grandma's money, and as soon as she can't answer for herself it'll be goodbye grandma.
The ACLU is so wrapped up in this society of death, that they, along with their partners in the American Left will forego any rights to life that someone has for them to be able to choose when they die.
No-one should be able to kill anyone "for their own good". Ever. That's not Doctor assisted Suicide, it's homicide people. Plain and simple.

This was a production of >Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at

Our Portal

. You will be added to our maling list and blogroll.
Over 115 blogs already onboard.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/02/14/stop-the-aclu-blogburst-team

Why the Miers bid upsets me.

At first I was pissed, then optimistic, then torn. But while surfing the bloggosphere, I ran across this post by John Hawkins at Right Wing News:

Let's say you and 4 friends have been playing pick-up
basketball with another 5 guys for a while. The games are pretty evenly matched
and as a general rule, one team is as likely to win as the other.
Well, you and the other team place a huge bet on your game next Saturday: $5000 a head
goes to the winning team. Everybody on the team is jazzed up, everybody is
talking about it and suddenly you catch an incredible, once in a lifetime break.
One of the regular players on your team won't be able to make it and according
to rules everyone agreed on, you get anyone you want as a replacement.
The reason that's such good news is that one of the guys on your team actually works
for the NBA and he knows lots of pro-basketball players who have all agreed to
fill in if he asks. Suddenly, everybody on the team is debating whom they want
to play on Saturday. Would the team be better off with Jermaine O'Neal or Allen
Iverson? Would it better to have LeBron James or Tim Duncan? Yao Ming or Ben
Wallace?
So everyone is on Cloud 9, waiting for the coach to come back with
his selection and he chooses....Tom, whom he plays basketball with in his back
yard. Mouths drop open, people start to curse, everyone is disappointed and
Coach W. says: "Don't worry, I've seen Tom play and he'll be a great addition to
the team."
This blows everyone's mind. With so much on the line and so many
great players waiting in the wings, why in the world would the coach select his
buddy Tom? To this, the coach says: "Trust me, Tom will be fantastic! You'll
love him! See you on Saturday."

Pretty well sums it up for me. We had a ringer in the waiting...hell, we had TWENTY! As a true conservative, I am heretofore stopping my funding of the GOP unless it's for a specific candidate that I can trust more than W. Please, if you are in the same boat as I...lets put some pressure on our congressmen to vote AGAINST Miers. That'll give us another shot, and this time, maybe, just maybe they'll get it right.

President Moore, Anyone?

Roy Moore announced today that he will be seeking to unseat hte growingly unpopular Bob Riley as Governor of the great state of Alabama. In case you don't remember, Roy Moore was Elected as Cheif justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court in 2000, and gained national prestige when he defied a court order to remove a statue of the ten commandments from the Court house there in Montgomery.

Judge Moore has became somewhat of a folk hero among the conservative movement, prompting many to question the newly-assumed role of the courts of policy making and social structure shaping entities.

Now to the title of this post... it is shown that Governors seem to fare well in Presidential elections. IF Roy Moore runs for president, expect to hear campaign rallying cries like: "It is a crucial time to run for office when rights and liberties are being eroded, taxes climb, the education of our children declines and morality erodes while judges tell children they cannot pray," as Moore stated in Gadsden, AL

Moore later said:

"I believe that God is leading me to uphold the laws in Alabama and guide its policies."

That's a man I can get behind, and I think my fellow bloggers and friends who have signed the petition to Stop the ACLU and all conservatives alike would agree.

So, let me be the first to say (as far as I know) Roy Moore for President '08!

source: http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=9816807&src=rss/domesticNews

Harriet Miers!

Harriet Miers has just recieved the bid for Sandra Day O'Connors' Replacement on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Miers, a Texas native, studied at Southern Methodist University, where she earned undergraduate and law degrees. She was an attorney in private practice until 2000 and was George W. Bush’s personal lawyer. In 1985, she became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and in 1992 became the first woman to head the Texas State Bar. She was also elected to one term as an at-large member on the Dallas City Council.
I am catching hints of more cronyism...but I'm cautiously optimistic. In any case, don't expect the leftists to show any civility just because she's female. I'll have more on this matter later...for now, you can find alot at Stop the ACLU.
I'll leave you with this... Without the long judicial history that would've come with an acting judge, it'll be alot harder to fight her nomination.

*UPDATE*
It seems that the LEFT is concerned that Miers is not a "scary conservative" from what I am hearing on the news. They're nervous. Good.
Even though she's an unknown, I have a good feeling about her. Scalia in a dress. I'm probably kidding myself, though...but one can hope.
My infuriation with this pick has nothing to do with Miers...I don't know her. It has more to do with the appearance of weakness shown by our president. We are winning. Conservativism is pulling way ahead and the left would make themselves obselete if Bush would've appointed an unabashed, unashamed conservative.
On a good note, I am hearing that Harriet Miers was instrumental in Bush's appointing of P. Owen to the courts. This could be a very good sign.

What the???

It seems I'm having a little trouble convincing Google ads as to what I am about. So, to clarify...I'm Pro-Gun...Anti-Liberalism...Pro-Life...Pro-Smaller Government...and an unapologetic Right Winger. I'm a True Conservative. Maybe this will help Google Ads decide what "psa's" to run here...or, If you're really interested...maybe you could buy some ad space? [/shameless self-promotion]

Light Posting

Sorry for the light posting...I am new to this blogging thing, yes a nOOb, and have yet to figure out a way to work writing original content into my schedule. I am currently running two campaigns...The local Sherrif's race and possibly my own (I have until Nov. to apply for the Circuit Court Clerk's test, then 1February to file for intent.). On top of that, my only son just started school this year...and I am trying to spend as much of my spare time with him. I WILL TRY to keep better updated, at least weekly, with Thursdays being dedicated to
stopping the ACLU from further diminishing our rights as individuals on the taxpayer's dime. 'Til next time, adeu.