Irritable Engineer

Monday, May 24, 2010

Obama 2001

In the following clip,, an interview in 2001, our President tells WBEZ the Warren Court was not as radical as its reputation suggests. His observation being that the Warren Court to not break free of the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. Explaining, he says that the Constitution was constructed to preserve a set of "negative liberties" meant for restricting the what the state can do to citizens. His complaint is that the Constitution does not enumerate what the is to be done for the citizens.
President also says that redistributing wealth is an administrative task.
In a party last Friday night, with no dissension, it was agreed that President Obama has been erected in a artificial world of education and politic, he has no industrial experience, no experience at building. In his experience everything that is built requires capital from those with excess. Without any pragmatic experience is is in effect a true believer, an ideal of Social is achievable. As a true believer, he has not other path to follow but the one he is on. All agreed that our only hope is to resist until his term of office has ended. There is no hope that President Obama will come to understand agree with the Constitution's premise, that men have right to seek and work in any manner they chose. That government is restricted from helping citizens because the founders understood that required the infringement of other citizens rights.
Listen in, these are words from mouth of our leader....

Candidates press flesh at Freedom Festival event

Sometimes I will rip through these artcles suggested and delete. Today I am glad I was more carefull, because DGJ's significant other is quoted.

“I think people need to know what’s going on and educate themselves, and this is a good way to do it,” Greene said.“I think
people need to know what’s going on and educate themselves, and this is a good way to do it,” Greene said.

Wish that I had not been busy on Saturday, would have enjoyed listening to Herman Cain.

gainesvilletimes.com - Candidates press flesh at Freedom Festival event

Homeland Security may refuse to process AZ aliens

Reported at GOPUSA, a Homeland Security official suggests that the Federal government may refuse to process Arizona illegal immigrant detainees.
Alabama Senator Sessions gets right to the point, if you can't do your job, you should not have the job.
Agreed, any referral would have already been proven to be an illegal immigrant.

GOPUSA » Fresh Ink » Homeland Security may refuse to process AZ aliens

More unintended consequences...

Link sent by DGJ proves the libertarian position. Take away the illegality, competition increases, quality improves and prices drop. Now that some of the suppliers are in distress, liberals would apply their model of modernization, increasing taxes, applying growing restrictions on the most productive, eventually driving the market back underground. Prices then will rebound.

Not that I really give shit about pot heads in California, it's just funny that they are such a bunch simpering fools.

Thanks for the good link.

Silly Liberals...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Pot-Growers-Troubled-by-Falling-Prices-jw-93964829.html

Election 2010: Kentucky Senate

Looking at my previous post the report of this pollster is on point. Rasmussen has taken the temperature of the Kentucky plebicite, results are that Rand Paul has a GIANT lead over the Democratic candidate.
It is good to see that Kentuckians have enough intelligence to sift through the liberal media's chaf.

Election 2010: Kentucky Senate

Posted using ShareThis

Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Found this story in the the Atlanta Journal Constitution's opinion section. Within the short article labelled Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the AJC's Jim Galloway suggests that he is pointing out a flaw in the Senate candidate's policy makeup.
In the clip Mr. Paul says that he is against racism yet might have voted with Barry Goldwater in the stance that the Civil Right Act was over reaching. This, to me, illuminates a true libertarian belief, government should be restricted from enjoining citizens and their own personal rights. In said situation government must restrict the rights of one person to improve well being of another. Paul says that the question is abstract which it is, the Act itself will not EVER be repealed, nor is he trying to do so.
I considered myself a libertarian until 9/11 made clear that libertarian foreign policy was infantile. Party leader Harry Browne's reaction was very similar to that of many Democrats, looking for the causality in own nation.
I think that the liberals, such as Rachel Maddow, think that they have found the golden flaw in Libertarian policy. What the liberals make clear with this abstract question designed to make Libertarian's belief in limited government equal racism, is that Tea Party types believe that government should be restricted from everything not enumerated in the Constitution.
This is not the smoking gun of anything evil in Rand Paul's beliefs, its a threatened liberal construct designed to unify Democrats against serious Libertarian.
Domestically Libertarians are the opposite of Democrats.
In terms of foreiegn policy Libertarians are much like Democrats.
Galloway is a loser, if he writes any more on this topic it well help disprove his position that he has the inside scoop on anything.

Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted using ShareThis

This was sent to me from iOwnTheWorld...

And then sent to me by DGJ. I think of this article by John Perry as preposterous, one of the reasons that I unsubscribed from the blizzard of Newsmax articles. Regardless an amusing read.

This was a Newsmax article that was pulled, but Talking Points Memo mirrored it. The author could always use the Muzzy Defense, made famous in the South Park debacle. He is not advocating what he is writing, he is just reporting what could happen.

Full Text Of Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama

Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Mexican President Knocks Arizona Law From White House Lawn

That our President Obama aided the Mexican government by giving the Mexican President the most powerful platform in the world to speak against the active laws of a United State is in itself sedition. Unspeakably wrong.
You should not ever favor the needs of an another nation over the legal standing of citizens. For a President, this is breaking the oath of office.
An amusing aside, the linked clip states the Mexico has issued a travel advisory to its citizens.
A travel advisory, if visitors are legally in our country, they have legal documentation, then there is no problem.
No, this is a warning to border jumpers that have no intention of being lawful.
This is sort of like telling a bootlegger to not sell his product at the poky.

Breitbart.tv » Mexican President Knocks Arizona Law From White House Lawn

Why is Arizona enforcing the laws? Just one reason!!!

You should visit these links and see the pictures of the mess our undocumented workers leave.

I stand with you ARIZONA. Nothing worse than a pissed off focused DGJ!!!

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=23740

Ms. Brewer, I applaud you!!!

http://www.buycottarizona.com/

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Hidden Agenda

DGJ sent this to me late last week, it takes about 2 hours to get through the entire set.
If at all true, points to the manipulation of unwitting citizens by a sub-group with furtive goals. Young people continue today to be manipulated into protesting when they have only tangential experience with the processes they wish to modify. As I become older I am coming to the conclusion that young people's protestations are given importance in the media in a proportion inverse to their relative worth. Young people should experience the causal relationships of the workplace and sociaety before they be considered to have a valid opinion about same.

Progressive influences and intentional disruptions that came into vogue during the 1950's and 1960's have now been been anointed reverential respect in mainstream media. This slurring of the Constitution rights provided is bubbling to the surface today in quasi-acceptable forms of benefits promised, which in turn carry the price rights diminished. All possible through a slanted media compounded by hijacked educational system that teaches conformation to the peoples need is more important than self need.