Spin Or Just Denial??

Over the past few days I have been watching the Democrats speak against the Health Care Bill repeal and it just amazes me. Either they are in denial or they are out and out liars just trying to spin their answers.

One Democrat today said that the Republicans were going against the voters who voted for them to go after the economy and NOT to repeal ObamaCare. I wonder where he was when the lead up to the election was taking place? Of course he left out that repealing ObamaCare would be a boon to the economy. So the Republicans are going after two birds with one stone. That is efficiency.

This Democrat also said that going after ObamaCare was a bad move because, "look at what this bill will mean", insuring 15 million people and keeping them out of the emergency rooms. What? I wonder what flavor of cool aide he is drinking. The 15 million people that are being covered are all being moved to Medicaid, where the states are responsible for the cost. Its just moving the cost from the emergency room budget to the state tax rolls. I wonder how that will affect California!!! Or is it? It is well known that Medicaid patients are one of the largest users of the Emergency room!!! So it increases the cost to the state AND does NOT reduce the emergency room use. But he conveniently left out that part.

Another Democrat decries the use of several days to repeal ObamaCare as a waste of time that could be better spent on recovering the economy since the President will veto it anyway. It seems that loosers always want to shift the focus of the winners. First, showing small business that Republicans are serious about reform or repeal of ObamaCare will cause small business to be more confident in the future and more likely to expand. So two or three days to vote to repeal, whether it happens or not, is good for the moral of small business. Good for the economy!!

This Democrat also wants time to debate. This is an UP or DOWN vote, nothing to debate. Do we repeal the ObamaCare Bill or do we not. There will be no additions, amendments, changes, just, yes or no. But I have noticed that politicians ON BOTH SIDES, seem to have a problem with yes or no answers. Those are two words that they just cannot understand when posed as a question. Of course they have no problem saying YES to spending, and NO to tax cuts. I think I now understand why it is only in modern times, since the Great Depression that spending has gotten out of hand. They needed the income from the Income Tax to have something to spend. Prior to the depression there was no income tax! Now days they dont even need income, just inflation!!

Another Democrat says that "Once the people get to know ObamaCare, they will like it." Well, its been over a year and they still don't like it. And they like it less every day. 75% against and 25% for was the last poll I saw. When is the turnaround in sentiment supposed to start? Maybe after the turnaround in unemployment? I doubt that it will ever happen. Under the current President I doubt that EITHER will happen.

Either these Democrats have been drinking the Presidents cool aide and really believe what they are saying, or they are liars. Neither possibility is encouraging for the American People and our future under Democratic leadership.

Make Obama a one term President as the former vice president is predicting.

Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Its 2AM And I Screwed Up

Its 2 o'clock in the morning and I just got out of bed to write this because my conscience was bothering me. As I lay in the bed rethinking the afternoons events I was reminded of the huge crowds of people that used to listen to Adolf Hitler and swoon over his words. A always wondered why no one stood up to speak against his vitriol. Then I realized that I had just done the same thing. Yes, there were many in those crowds that disagreed with Hitler, but they stood silent while he raved on and on. They stood silent while he murdered millions of people. And, now I know why they didn't speak, why I didn't speak.

First, lets be clear, I am a TEA Party leader. I believe in the TEA Party's desire to have a constitutional government and fiscal responsibility. I and my team staged four TEA Party events in support of TEA Party goals. We worked hard to overthrow the Good Old Boys in South Texas and replace them with conservatives. I am a conservative American..... somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

But this afternoon I went to a TEA Party gathering to listen to someone speak on Republican responsibilities to the conservative cause. What I heard appalled me and made me uncomfortable. In fact I haven't been that uncomfortable since the time I was in Guatemala some years ago and we were in a private home watching a movie. The movie was "Romero", a movie about the Catholic priest and two nuns that were apparently gunned down by a government sponsored death squad. It had only been a few years previously that the movie was banned in Guatemala by the forces that were then in control. As I sat there I wondered, "When will the doors burst open and a death squad open up on us with Uzi's?" I was uncomfortable even though I knew the government had changed.

This afternoon the speaker made me feel that discomfort again. That speaker is the type of speaker that gives the TEA Party a bad name.

He used racial slurs to refer to my President. Barack Obama IS my president even though I don't agree with him very much, if any. In the military we were taught to respect the uniform no mater who was wearing it. To the military, this man is their Commander In Chief. I am a veteran and he is my Commander In Chief. To me he is the President of the United States.

This speaker used derogatory terms to refer to the Speaker of the Texas House and my Representative to that body. I did not appreciate that. This speaker spoke of "getting in their face" and called many of the Texas Representatives RINOs, thats a political slur and is uncalled for in reasonable discourse. He said no one listened to him. I am NOT surprised. I wonder if HE would be surprised that last Tuesday I spent three hours in my Representatives office and that I exchanged many ideas with him and that he listened to me. It was because I didn't get in his face and call him a RINO. It was because I tried to reason with him as one reasonable man to another. We respect each other.

But I sat there quietly as the speaker raved on until I finally got up and left quietly. Just as perhaps many German citizens did from Hitlers speeches. I did not stand up and tell the others there that he was wrong. I was afraid I might make someone mad or make an ass of myself. Because of my inaction there may have been those there that thought this was typical of the TEA Party. It is definitely NOT typical. They may never come back. At least two who left after I did, told me that they would not be back. One told me that his wife was of mixed ancestry and he did not like the term "Half Breed". I too am a "Half Breed", half Irish and half Spanish. I also do not like that term. How many others will hear from these two men and will decide to avoid the TEA Party and all the good it stands for? How many in the crowd heard this attack on the President and felt uncomfortable? If I am far to the right, and it bothered me, you can bet there were many others that were bothered.

I cannot go back and undo my inaction this afternoon. But maybe by writing this piece someone will read it and relate it to those who were there and were as appalled as I was. Maybe. But I am ashamed of my inability to stand up and face that speaker and tell him that he was wrong.

It wont happen again. I may make an ass of myself, but I wont have to get up at 2 AM to write a letter. Next time I will sleep soundly knowing I did the right thing.


Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

The Aftermath Of Armageddon

Its been a few days since the massacre in Arizona and you would think by now that cooler heads would have prevailed. But, NO, it seems the Left is just getting started with Gun Control, Free Speech, and limitations on the movement of people.

These are the tools that those that would enslave us will use to do the job. First scare us into following their lead then after we have given up our freedom, they will take the reins. This was the same tactic that was used by the "Manmade Global Warming" scam. First they scared us by offering scenarios that painted a bleak future for the human race. Then while we were reeling from the effects of the predictions, and before we could gather our wits to research and find that it was all a scam, they tried to pass legislation to enslave us using us as their willing participants.

Luckily we are awakening from the stupor that Al Gore tried to put us into. We are beginning to see that MGW doesn't exist. We are rejecting "Cap and Trade". And while oil prospecting and drilling are not yet back to the levels they need to be, we are working on that. Nov 2nd 2010 was the first step and Nov 6th 2012 will be the second step.

Today I got a report that there are some people that will not attend the TEA Party event in Portland on Saturday because they are fearful of large crowds since last weeks massacre in Arizona. As FDR said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." As much as I don't like quoting FDR, in this case he is right. Submitting to fear and not attending the TEA Party is enabling the Left to take your freedom. That is the beginning.... It wont stop there.

Now they are trying to pass legislation to to further enslave us, Gun Control, and Speech Control. If we allow that we are doomed to fail in upholding the goals of our conservative movement to uphold the Constitution.

Can you imagine a law that outlaws guns within 1,000 feet of a federal official. The first one affected would be that official, stopping him/her from carrying a weapon to defend themselves!!! Then making it criminal for me to carry a legal firearm while having dinner in public because at any moment a federal official might walk in and make me an instant criminal. This is asinine!!

And limiting the language that can be used on talk radio is negating the 1st amendment directly. It is "NewSpeak" as was used by "Big Brother" in the novel 1984. Oddly this idea is supported by a Democrat that, during the campaign, said he wanted his opponent to be lined up against a wall and shot. This even though the evidence is that the accused killer didn't listen to radio or TV political discourse ANYWAY.

They haven't gone after the 10th amendment yet.... But from my reading of the Constitution and the interpretation that the Progressives propose of its meaning, I think the only thing that the 10th amendment still protects for the states is the right to secede from the union!! Maybe not a bad idea.

That madman can cause you, through fear, to do more harm to yourself than he did to you. This is the goal of all suicide bombers. They do, by fear, what they are not able to do by law or reason.

Do Not Surrender to the madmen of the world.

I chose to live free because even if that choice leads to my demise, in the interim, I will have lived better than those who have surrendered. Emiliano Zapata said it best when he said, "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Whose Fault is It? Bushes, Palins, rhetoric, TEA Party????

The tradegy in Arizona was NOT the TEA Partys fault. Nor was it George Bushes fault, nor anyone else that had been named by the left wing zelots of the blogosphere.

In fact, recent comments have said that the accused perpetrator was actually a left wing crazy. But I dont blame it on the left wing either. No one is responsible for the actions of a deranged mind.

BUT... the Left Wing IS responsible for their outreageous charges. They and they alone could curb their rhetoric aimed at blaming the tragedy on the right for their own political advantage. If the accused perpetrator had been a Right Wing Kook as is charged by the left, but not born out by interviews with his fellow students, it still would not be the fault of the Right Wing. The freedoms that are given to us in this great nation include the right to believe what we will. No one has forced anyone to believe anything so no one can be blamed. But in this case the fact that he is apparently a left wing kook not a right wing kook makes the various left wing bloggers look silly in their accusations.

What are the signs of a deranged mind? A FOX news anchor said that in his opinion the man was deranged because he:

1) stated that he didnt trust the Government. Gee, I dont trust the government either, am I deranged?

2) stated that he did not want to pay his debts with a currency not backed with Gold. Opps, perhaps I also am deranged...I, too, would prefer a gold backed currency.

Are these what makes one deranged? No, of course not. If that were true then I could be committed. No, what makes one deranged is that he thinks he can correct the percieved wrongs by killing a fellow human being. This is a deranged mind.

Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Straus for Speaker of the House? I think not!!

I received this from the Morrisonreport. If it is true then Straus is the last man we would want for the Speaker of the House. The sources for this report are linked at the bottom of the page so you can check it out yourself.
===================

"A new session of the Texas Legislature is about to convene, and the first order of business will be electing a Speaker of the House. This ballot will be the single most important vote House members will cast during the entire session, as the Speaker has tremendous power to set the agenda, appoint committee chairmen, kill bills, etc. During last session, which was divided almost equally between Republicans and Democrats, RINO Joe Straus was Speaker. Straus used the power of his office to thwart conservative goals and paid off the liberal Democrats who voted for him by not rocking the boat. He even helped some of them campaign for re-election against conservative Republicans this past November.

This is totally unacceptable, and there's no reason Straus should be elected Speaker in this session, because Republicans now enjoy a super-majority in the House. Voters went to the polls all over Texas in November, and we made our voices clear: we want a truly conservative legislature which will work hard to enact a real conservative agenda. We've had enough of "me too Republicans" in the House whose main career goals seem to be making friends with Democrats.

Naturally, Joe Straus and his cronies are insisting that they heard us loud and clear, and this session will be different, and Straus will fight for a conservative agenda. Conservatives aren't buying this line, thankfully. If a man won't stand for conservative principles when the going is tough, there's no reason to believe he'll do so when the wind is at his back. We've seen enough of Joe Straus over the years to know exactly where he stands on the issues. He made that crystal clear during the last session, and he's not the conservative leader Texas conservatives need. All across the state local conservative groups are demanding that Straus be replaced as Speaker.

Party leaders are aware of this, and have scheduled a caucus meeting before the actual start of the session to settle on one GOP candidate for Speaker. The plan is to meet in private and pick a candidate everyone agrees on, rather than fight internal party battles in a public forum. This is nothing out of the ordinary; political parties do this sort of thing all the time. In fact, this is exactly why we have primaries, so the parties can agree on one candidate for the general election, instead of a half dozen people from each party vying for office.

Amazingly, though, one Democrat is denouncing the planned caucus as "racist" - because Democrats aren't invited! Rep. Joseph Deshotel (D-Port Arthur) has written an open letter making the ludicrous claim that this meeting violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because most of the Democratic representatives in the Texas House are minorities, while most of the Republican legislators are white. Here's a brief excerpt from his letter:

"The forty-nine (49) Democratic legislators not being allowed to participate in what is tantamount to the election of the Speaker consist of forty-two minorities; fifteen (15) African Americans, twenty-five (25) Hispanics and one (1) Asian. Should the Republican Caucus Bylaws be followed an additional two African-Americans and four Hispanic Republican Elect members and one Hispanic former Democrat would be denied a vote as well. These forty-nine minority House Members and the eight millions Texans they represent are being disenfranchised from the Speaker's election."

These days we're seeing more and more outrageous claims of "racism", but this one really takes the cake. First of all, the Voting Rights Act is a nearly 50 year old law that unconstitutionally discriminates against southern states. It's a racist law that presumes black people can only be represented by black people, and that white voters in southern states are wicked racists who are always out to deny black people their right to vote.

Second, the Voting Rights Act doesn't even apply to this caucus, which isn't an election at all. It's a private meeting for Republican legislators to discuss internal party affairs. There is still going to be a vote in the House for Speaker; the idea that this meeting will somehow invalidate the votes of minority legislators when they cast their votes for Speaker is completely ridiculous. No one takes this argument seriously; Rep. Deshotel has embarrassed himself and his cause by writing this letter. Crying "racism" when you don't get your way is rapidly losing its force in America.

However, this letter does further demonstrate why Joe Straus is unfit to hold the office of the Speaker of the House. That's because Rep. Deshotel has pledged his vote to Straus. How can conservatives support a candidate who's acceptable to a liberal left wing Democrat like Joseph Deshotel, who stoops to accusing Republicans of being racists for not allowing Democrats to have a say in their internal party affairs? We already knew that Joe Straus was too liberal, but this disgraceful episode reveals just what kind of company he keeps. Joe Straus has got to go. We deserve a true conservative as Speaker of the House, not one who counts men like Joseph Deshotel among his supporters."

====================================


The Establishment VS the People

Dallas Morning News

Trail Blazers Blog

Deshotel: On Republican Caucus Speaker Election


Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

End of Life Counseling or Death Panels???

What you call it all depends on how it is handled.

If you are forced to take it without asking it means that SOMEONE thinks you NEED it. Or, in other words, someone thinks you should make that decision which means they think death, for YOU, is a valid option. This is what the original language in the Obama Care bill forced. It made mandatory, annual end of life counseling for all recipients of Medicare, whether they asked for it or not. This indicates that someone in government thought that after 64 years of age everyone should consider suicide at least once a year!!! That is a death panel.

OK, the administration has backed off of that stance. But as this article points out, there is more to this than meets the eye.

Obamacare Pushes for Early Death

In this article on Newsmax.com they report that the "government is [STILL] developing and widely disseminating “decision aids”; that is, brochures". And as the article says, "that is none of their business".

In my opinion that is like having a beneficiary of your last will and testament advising you on the benefits of suicide!!! The government has a vested interest in whether you live or die once you are on Medicare..AND Social Security!! Do you really want them to be advising you on whether you should commit suicide or not? They stand to gain perhaps $25,000 a year from your demise!!! If they can convince enough people to choose death, they might be able to balance the budget.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not against the counseling being available if and when you ask for it. But even then, it should not be from "government guidelines" or from government written "decision aids". It should be from your doctor and from his/her experience with similar patients or from your Pastor or Imam, or whatever. The choice of the source of your information should be YOURS, not the GOVERNMENTS.

Personally, I would never commit suicide. I am too much of an optimist. My worry would be that the day I decided to end it all, the next day they would discover an instant cure for my illness!!! I will wait until my maker calls me home and not one day earlier.


Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook

Non-Consentual Sex Partners

This article:

912 Project - Jared Law

makes the point that calling Illegal Immigrants, "Undocumented Workers" is like calling rapists "non-Consentual Sex Partners".

I think that Political Correctness has now gone over the precipice. At first I thought PC was just a little overly sensitive, but now it is obvious that it is really just a form of "NewSpeak". In the novel "1984" the world was ruled by Big Brother and there was a government department that had as its sole purpose, redefining words in such a way that they were not critical of the government. If the government was "retreating" in a battle, then the department of NewSpeak would redefine retreat to mean "advancing to a position of sustainable military action". The next week when the enemy was retreating, the definition was changed again.

Today the liberals have redefined "Liberal" to be "Progressive". Now, how can anyone be against progress??

They redefine "Illegal Immigrant" to be "Un Documented Worker" even though he/she may not be a worker at all, he/she may be a panhandler and may actually have documentation ... from his native country....

Janet Napolitano defines a "patriot" that exposes government weaknesses as a "Terrorist". I guess if you are for the downfall of the government so that you can replace it with a form more to your liking, as the current administration seems hell bent to do, then anything that might thwart that goal IS terrorism.

Obama calls "Death Panels" "End of life counseling" and rule by Legislative and Judicial arms of the government is replaced with "Regulation by Government Agency" and "Recess Appointment"

It wont work in the end because Obama underestimates the intelligence of the American people. We are a lot smarter than we look. Just because for the last 60 years we have been taking it lying down, doesn't mean we will continue. We will learn the language and no matter how they redefine it we will learn the new definitions. We are no longer going to have non-consensual sex with a government bent on screwing us. We are fighting back, we are calling the Progressives what they are, "Rapists".



Jim Isbell
=======================================================
The Free Republic
=======================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook