Levi Johnston: A Walking Argument Against Pre-Marital Sex

Levi Johnston: “Have sex with me so I can go on national TV and make disparaging comments about your mother, too.” What a pickup line. It seems to be working pretty well with the media, though.

Effectivity

I would love to see the Republicans push for an amendment to the House version of the health care reform bill requiring that all aspects, rather than just the tax increases, take effect within six months of passage of the bill, rather than not until 2013.

Transparency

If “health care reform” is such a critical issue, why is it that the proposals being debated in Congress do not take effect (except for the tax increases they include) until 2013? Why is nobody debating the implementation date? Why is there such an urgency to pass a bill (first, one must be passed before the August recess; now, one must be passed before the end of the year) that does not take effect until 2013?

It seems to me to be transparently obvious that the proposed changes will have a negative effect on health care in this country. If it were envisioned that the proposed changes would have a positive effect, wouldn’t our politicians want the positive effects to start sooner rather than later? Shouldn’t our politicians prefer to be able to run for re-election on the basis of the actual, current positive effects of the bill than on the basis of the perceived, future positive effects of the bill?

The fact that our politicians plan to run in both the 2010 mid-term Congressional elections and the 2012 Presidential election on the strength of the perceptions of a bill that will not even be in effect tells me that they know and don’t care that the proposed changes will have a negative effect on health care in this country.

The American Dream

The American Dream is not home ownership for the sake of home ownership; the American Dream is not home ownership at any cost.

The American Dream is home ownership. That is, the American Dream is actual, personal ownership of one’s home. The American Dream is not signing a mortgage with payments one cannot afford for a home one will never be able to pay off.

The American Dream is actual, personal ownership of one’s home; the American Dream is not so that the bank can own the home.

If you can’t afford the loan, don’t sign the mortgage. It is not shameful to rent.

Oops.

Might the mainstream media now be defending one of their own—that is, Fox News—against attacks from BHO? (See here and here.)

What’s that quote?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me
—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Anyone Can Be President

Barack Obama—proof that anyone, even radical Leftists bent on destroying the country, can be President.

We need to get a President back in the White House who actually respects the Constitution.

2012 can’t come fast enough.

What happens when Atlas shrugs?

What will happen if the liberal, Leftist Democrats currently in charge in Washington succeed in their quest to surrender American sovereignty to a United Nations-led one-world government?

What will happen if the liberal, Leftist Democrats currently in charge in Washington succeed in completely subverting the American experiment through the implementation of their Socialist agenda?

America leads the world in the development of both medical devices and prescription drugs.

America leads the world in the development of computer technology.

Where would the world be without companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, HP, and IBM?

Why did these world powerhouses grow and flourish in the United States?

What motivation would there be, under Socialism, for American innovation to continue?

What will happen if Atlas shrugs?

Freedoms

The notion of health care as a right has led me to think about rights and freedoms.

Franklin Roosevelt once gave a speech where he enumerated what he said were four basic freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

These last two were additions to the freedoms, or rights, enumerated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights.

Rights are actions you are free to take, not things you are free to take; thus, free health care, which necessitates taking products and services from others without payment, is patently not a right.

It has been said that fear is a great motivator. Fear of losing one’s job can serve as motivation to go to work; without the fear of losing one’s job, there would be much less motivation to go to work. Freedom from fear, then, is not necessarily something to be desired. The freedom to fear is something to be cherished.

Similarly, the freedom to want is something to be cherished. Imagine a world where it was illegal to want—that is, to want more than what is possessed by the person next to you; imagine a world where there was enforced equality of outcomes so that no one had more of anything than anyone else.

This is not the kind of world I want for myself. I want a world where I can want. I want freedom to want rather than freedom from want.

Franklin Roosevelt was intellectually lazy; liberals who want to force freedom from fear and want onto an unwilling populace are just plain dangerous.

Just Curious

Has anyone asked Dear Leader for his take on the whole Rush Limbaugh brouhaha?

It’d be the perfect opportunity for the iWon to stick his foot in his mouth again. Maybe Rush would even get invited to the White House for a beer.

Reconciliation

The reconciliation process, informally called the Nuclear Option, is a strategy generally used by the Senate only to pass contentious budget bills; the reconciliation process allows a bill to be passed with a 51-vote simple majority rather than the typical 60-vote supermajority.

One would think that, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, the Democrats could pass any bill that satisfied their constituents without having to resort to using the Nuclear Option.

The fact that the Democrats are contemplating using the Nuclear Option to gain passage of Obamacare in the Senate should communicate to anyone who is paying attention that the Democrats’ health care plan is not something the country wants.

Obamacare is Socialism, pure and simple. The country does not want it. Mainstream media outlets are betraying this country by not giving this issue more press.

Congratulations, Mr. President

Congratulations, Mr. President, on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Can we just promote Barack Obama to President of the World?

I’ll settle for Joe Biden as President of the United States.

(Anything to get BHO out of the country.)

God help us all.

The

Idealists

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot, anecdotally, about how the flaws of the country’s Founding Fathers make the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution flawed documents—that the statement “that all men are created equal” is the height of hypocrisy given that some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

The Founding Fathers were, in some ways, idealists; the Declaration of Independence and, to an extent, the Constitution were and are statements of ideals.

The ideals are valid. The fact that the Founding Fathers were imperfect individuals should in no way invalidate the perfection of the ideals contained in a document stating “that all men are created equal”.

Rather than discard it, we should seek to strive for the ideal.

Irony

While thumbing through a copy of Celebutards from the library, I came across this sentence from the foreword where the author, Andrea Peyser, describes herself as “right of center”:

I support classic conservative causes, such as crime-fighting, tax-cutting, welfare reform, and the death penalty, but I'm live-and-let-live on a variety of social issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Hmm. Live-and-let-live on abortion. More like live-and-let-die. Or live-and-let-actively-kill.

How, exactly, is one “live-and-let-live” on abortion? Does Andrea Peyser not see the irony in this statement? Wouldn’t the “live-and-let-live” position require one to be pro-life?