Archive for the ‘Congress’ category

An Apology To My Grandkids

September 27, 2011

Last week I was traveling to Austin from Houston on Highway 71 and passed through Bastrop, Texas.  As you may know, a few weeks ago the scene in Bastrop was what you see above and 71 was closed.  As I passed through I could see burned landscape and numerous trees that were clearly dead from the heat around them as leaves were completely brown (and for you Northerners–that doesn’t happen in Texas until November).  I could smell through my air conditioning unit the distinct odor of ashes and burned wood.  It is an unbelievable tragedy.  The fact that “our” President waited so long to declare these areas a Federal Emergency is a sad commentary on his juvenile attitude towards Texas in general.  I pray for those who lost their homes (hundreds of them) and anyone who may have been injured in this horrific event.

As I drove through and smelled the burning remains of Bastrop County I wondered if Americans could smell the odor of burnt ash in other parts of the Country.  I wondered if the smell of burning money could be identified in our air emanating from Washington DC.

I imagine that this smell would be different from the burning wood smell.  Although it would clearly contain the scent of burning paper and ink, I imagine it would also have the smell of lost opportunities for the future generations of our Country.  I imagine it smells like the hope of going to college, owning a home, providing for your family and living in peaceful freedom all being burned to the ground. 

Believe me, I wish I could attribute that smell to the Obama administration and liberal Democrats only–but it isn’t all their fault.  Sure, liberals believe (which is clear from Obama’s latest proposal) that money you and I earn doesn’t really belong to us.  Liberals believe that if you work 40-80 hours a week, save your money and provide for your family, you also have a duty to help the rest of society that refuses to do the same.  Further, and worse, liberals believe that money you earn should be given to the smarter, better Government to redistribute as it sees fit for the “betterment” of society.  After all–it is only “fair.”   

But as I said, there is plenty of fault to go around for our current situation.  President George W. Bush, a person I have the utmost respect for, expanded entitlement programs during a time of war which took our deficit from a negative number to over $450 billion.  Most of the spending was military, but there was also the prescription drug program, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid among others.  Then there was the bailouts of 2008-which began with Bush and continued through Obama.

Obama on the other hand took a $450 billion deficit in 2008 and turned it into a $1.4 trillion deficit by the end of 2009.  For you math wizards, that is $990 billion in ONE YEAR.  It has spiraled out of control since then to a point now where our deficit is over $3.7 trillion and counting.   Smell it burning?

I credit the Tea Party for trying very hard since 2009 to bring this to the attention of Americans.  The problem is that many of us simply don’t care or don’t understand it.  Everyone lives in the moment.  Sure, you can still go to the store and afford milk and bread.  You can usually afford to fill up your car with gas.  Because of the sluggish economy the prices of many things have not gone up dramatically.  You can see a movie, purchase an IPhone and go about living YOUR life without really appreciating or worrying about a over-the-head concept such as National Deficits and National Debts. 

But while we are living our quiet lives, the Country is on fire and not enough people are declaring a National Emergency.  It is amazing to realize that the fate of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren currently resides in the hands of one president, 100 senators and 435 representatives.  536 people will determine whether or not our Grandkids live in a free Country.

Think I’m being overly dramatic?  Money may not buy happiness-but the lack of money results in enslavement.  The more the US takes from our pockets, the tighter the shackles are twisted on our necks and hands.    The more our deficit grows, the more the Government will need to pay for it.  The current administration has spent money it doesn’t have and is now asking for even more. 

We have not done enough.  As citizens, voting is a primary way of voicing our opinions and our beliefs, but it is not enough.  We must be diligent in doing what we can NOW to stop the out of control fire burning away our future.

I want to take this opportunity to immortalize my apology to my kids and grandkids.  I am sorry that I did not do enough and that none of us did enough to stop our Government from destroying your Country.  I am sorry that your future has been harmed by the omissions of your grandfathers and grandmothers.  I am sorry that we were not bold enough to think beyond the present and act, as our founding fathers did, for the future of all Americans, both the present and the future generations to come. 

I promise to try to do more in the coming months to dramatically change the current leadership in our Nation and put leaders in place that have integrity, that care about America, that care about Americans, that put duty and loyalty to the service of our Nation above personal desires and love of fame and power, and who will make the tough choices to end entitlements and wasteful agencies and departments in order to cut spending, reduce taxes and save our Nation.

I am fearful of our current Government.  I am fearful of what they can do and what they are willing to sacrifice in the quest for power and control.  A famous American once said this:

I promise to work to make the government fear the people again and stop the stench of burning money from the halls of Washington, D.C.  I pray we succeed.

To the reader–are you fearful, do you smell the fire–get involved to stop it.

-Murphy

What Does “Void” Mean? (Asks the Liberal Wacko)

February 18, 2011

I have to confess that life and work and life and work have taken over.  Not to mention I am on a committee at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo where I sell Half-Priced Carnival Ticket packs from January to February 27 to raise money for the HLSR Scholarship fund.  And it has been KILLING me that I cannot sit down and blog.  So much is going on–the Middle East, defunding of Obamacare, Wisconsin Scaredocrats running and hiding, but this article sent me into full blown head explosion mode.

Today, our Federal Government, led by a man who himself has stated is “very smart” has asked the Florida Federal Court to clarify its ruling on the Health Care legislation.

The Justice department is asking the question.  Now who leads that department again?….

Ahhh yes, Eric Holder.  Mr. Holder, an attorney himself, seems to be confused about the meaning of the Ruling.  Let’s see if we here at MKCB can help the Justice Department.  Consider it pro bono legal work for our Bankrupt Federal Government.

The Ruling States in part: 

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote.

“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”

So let’s see if we can decipher this complex maze of words and phrases.   The Judge is reluctant to conclude something about the bounds of authority…okay…and then he says Congress can address the problems of the health care system…okay…and then something about 1/6 of something…and then he says that the individual mandate (which is the requirement that we all purchase health care insurance) is really really important to the way the legislation was written…okay…and then he says “THE ENTIRE ACT MUST BE DECLARED VOID.”

“Void”  what does that mean????  Does it mean that we can no longer call it “Obamacare” but we now have to call it “Void?”

Okay, let’s slow down.  What does “entire” mean?  According to Dictionary.com it means:  “having all the parts or elements; whole; complete; full or thorough; not broken, mutilated or decayed; intact; unimpaired or undiminished; being wholly of one piece; undivided; continuous; not gelded (an entire horse).”

Whew–for a second I thought it had something to do with those wheely things on your car.  So “entire” means the whole thing.  Okay so far.

What about “declared?”  It means:  “publicly avowed or professed; self-confessed.”  So, the whole act must be self-confessed or publicly avowed void?  That is weird.  I thought “declared” was like when you take the custard filling out of an eclair it has been “declared.”  I see how these guys are so confused.

Kind of like this guy:

But I digress…

So now we come to the real problem with this ruling.  The word “void.”  That means: “having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.”  See that seems straight forward enough, but wait there’s more.  It also means: “useless, ineffectual; devoid; destitute; without contents; empty; without an incumbent; having no cards in a suit; empty space; something experienced as a loss or privation; a gap or opening in a wall; a vacancy; invalidate or nullify; discharge; to clear or empty contents; to urinate or defecate.” 

Well, I think we can sum up the entire ruling based on this definition.

“The entire Act must be declared void” can be further clarified to mean, “the whole act is self-confessed poop.”

Don’t thank me Mr. Holder, I’m just doing my part as a patriotic American.

-Murphy

“Democrats Gaining Ground” and Other Ridiculous Notions

October 5, 2010

Despite a report today on Gallup that Republicans will likely win big next month, despite weeks of poll numbers showing Democrats losing in numerous races across the Country in National, State and Local elections, despite all of that data and the common sense of every living person in the Nation, I was stunned to open my home page at msn.com this morning to find an article making the claim that Democrats are gaining ground in various polls.

Let’s review the tactics to win this election by the Democrats since March:

1.  Republican’s ideas are the same as Bush’s ideas and those are the “failed policies of the past.”

2.  Republicans are desperately trying to demonize the President because he is decisive and is bringing about change that is good for our Nation.

3.  Republicans are racists.

4. Republicans have given in to the fringe right of the Tea Party and want to take us back to the age of slavery, put women back in the home, outlaw abortion and feed their rich friends while stomping on the poor.

5.  Republicans are racists.

6.  The economy is Bush’s fault, who was a Republican, and but for Obama, we would be way worse off–like way, way.

7.  Republicans are elitists, bigots, homophobes and oh yeah, racists.

and now….

8.  Democrats are gaining ground and Fox News has been falsely hyping Republican victories, which are way over-exaggerated–like way, way.

This is the most amusing tactic yet.  Instead of telling America why Democrat philosophy is better for us than Republican philosophy, or telling us what their plan is for actually fixing the economy–they are simply trying to smoke screen the truth–yet again.  Unfortunately for Democrats, the truth is all to evident in this new information age with easy access to Rasmussen polls and Gallup polls online.  Sorry, Democrats, but you are still losing.

The idea that Democrats might actually not lose a tremendous number of incumbents in November is about as true as the following metaphorically similar statements (you may notice each of these came from the same person–can you guess who?):

1.  The Health Care Bill Will Not Increase The Deficit By One Dime. (thank goodness)

2.  The Healthcare Package Will Pay For Itself. (that’s cool–so it’s like installing better windows for your house–so that in say 500 years, you will have made up the cost in the tiny savings each month in your electric bill–okay, great)

3.  We Have Run Out of Places in The US to Drill For Oil.  (I figured all of those oil rigs in West Texas were just landscape art–I knew it)

4.  I Will Not Rest Until The BP Oil Spill Stops.  (I thought he looked really tired when he played golf those um, 7 times).

5. I Have Visited All 57 States.  (So, I called Continental Airlines and asked for their flight routes to the other 7 States and they said I was crazy–Thank Goodness they are merging with United–hopefully they have routes to those places.)

6. My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church. (I guess my church isn’t a Christian church after all–my heavens, what have I been worshiping!!!!????!!!)

Seriously!

-Murphy

Obama Calls Bush Before Troop Speech: But why?

August 31, 2010

According to the New York Post, Obama made a call to former President George W. Bush today from Air Force One while heading to Ft. Bliss to address the troops regarding the Iraq troop withdrawal.  But why would he do this?

I suppose there are various reasons but let’s examine this a little more closely.

I.  Obama’s Catch 22

In today’s speech, Obama finds himself in quite the predicament.  On the one hand he has always said that Iraq was the “wrong war.”  Further, the troop surge, according to then Senator Obama was a huge mistake.  Don’t recall that–let’s take a listen.

But wait, there’s more…In February of this year VP Biden had this to say:

Ummm….wha?

So, how will Obama tell the tale today?  He can’t blast Bush without demeaning the troops objective and essentially admitting defeat.  He can’t praise the troops for winning the war because he thinks the war is wrong.  And so…what did he and President Bush talk about.

Well, we here at MKCB have tapped into the ultra-secret phone line aboard Air Force One to bring you this exclusive phone call–here is the transcript of what we are pretty sure we heard…

[ring, ring, ring]

Bush:  Former President Bush here, miss me yet?

BO:     Umm, heh, umm, no…but umm.. anyway, sorry to bother you at home Mr. Bush, President Barack Obama here, how are you today?

Bush:  [smirking] Well, Barry I kinda thought you might call today.  I’m out at the ranch clearing some trees in the back and remembered something about a self-imposed arbitrary deadline regarding troops that you mentioned last year and figured you would be calling.  What can I do for the American people today?

BO:  Well, as you know I’m giving a speech before Ft. Bliss today and my speech writers are having trouble deciding whether I should praise myself and my leadership in bringing an end to the war, blast you again as I always enjoy doing, mention the needless loss of life in pursuit of oil and your dad’s revenge or all three.  I’m kind of nervous about it [puff, puff] and thought I’d see what you thought.

Bush:  I’d like to say I’m honored, really I’d like to…but, well, it might be a good idea to praise the troops for what they have sacrificed and accomplished, thank them and their families for their sacrifice and service, remind the world that peace in this region of the middle east is vital to our interests, remind the world that a world with out Saddam Hussein is a better world and leave it at that.  But I’m just spitballin’ here.

BO:  Well, I knew this was a waste of time.  You and your right-wing rhetoric.  The problem is I have to find a way to demonize you and the Republicans, make the Democrats look good, appease the anti-military crowd and win over the troops.  And frankly, my speech writers went to Harvard and Columbia and they are just too stupid to figure this out.

Bush:  I’d like to say I really want to help ya, I’d really like to say that…but, well, if you are calling to let me know you are going to demonize me and call me stupid again, thanks for the heads up, but I don’t see the point of this call.

BO:  I guess I just needed to do this and leak it to the press so that they would think I was somehow being nice to you right before I blast you.  Truth is, every time I’m around the military I get scared.  I’m afraid they know how much I loathe them.

Bush:  [smirking] Ohhhh, I’m sure they don’t know.  You just go up there, be yourself, and I’m sure the typical results will follow.  Your poll numbers and the stock market will go down.  Heh, heh!  Just ribbin’ ya Barry–have a great speech.

BO:  Ummm, yeah, okay I guess I…

[click]

BO:  (stupid hick)

-Murphy

Obama: “Things Could Be Worse”

July 1, 2010

Okay first of all–go to minute 47 of this hour long feature film and watch for about a minute–then you are prepared to read on…

So here we have our President saying that the way we know that the stimulus worked is because things could be worse.  And, of course, if you think about it, he is right.  I mean the argument that things could be better without it makes no sense whatsoever because, um… well… it just doesn’t.  Look stop fighting the logic of this administration because you obviously misunderstand the points they are trying to make.

For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that unemployment checks are creating jobs.  What?  You don’t get that?  Jeez…do I have to do all the thinking around here?

You see, when unemployed people get money, they spend it.  By spending money they are buying goods that are produced by people.  By buying those goods, people have to be employed to make more.  See?  Unemployment is good for the economy.

So you still don’t get it?  Well  I’ll try and explain it by using some other examples.

  1. Al and Tipper Gore have a good marriage when Al is happy.
  2. Al gets an inappropriate massage to release his shakra so that he can be happy.
  3. Getting an inappropriate massage is good for Al and Tipper’s marriage. 

See?  No?  Let me try another one.

  1. Cooking fish in oil is healthier than cooking fish in butter
  2. BP spilled zillions of barrells of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
  3. Fish in the Gulf are now covered with oil.
  4. Fish covered in oil can be cooked “as is.”
  5. Spilling oil into the Gulf is healthy.

It is so easy.  Okay 1 more then hopefully you will get it.

  1. Tiger Woods is worth $900 million to $1 billion dollars
  2. Tiger Woods cheated on his wife a billion times.
  3. Tiger Woods’ wife is getting $750 million in the divorce
  4. Cheating worked because her take could have been worse.

Now do you get it?  NO!!???? I give up on you guys, seriously.

-Murphy

“Consumer Option” vs. “Public Option” Redefines English Language

October 30, 2009

Our fearless leader of the House of Representatives has really outdone herself this time.  Today she produced a 1,900 page health care reform bill with no “public option.”  Errr…well…um I mean there is one it now called the “consumer option.”  Many of you know that she redefined the terms of this government takeover of our health care system a few days ago by simply “rebranding” the public option.  Now it doesn’t sound so darn socialismy (new word–just go with it).

But little did she know that she would start a revolution of the English Language.  Webster turned over in his grave this week as tens of tens of people rallied behind Madam Pelosi and took the lead to redefine many other areas of our language that just seemed a little well…negative.  So thank you Madam Speaker for your ingenuity, brilliance and trend-making abilities.  In conformity with rebranding the socialistic takeover of 1/6 of our economy from “Public” to “Consumer” here are a few more “rebranding” techniques currently in circulation:

1.  New Brand:  CHOCOLATE CAKE

CowPie.jpg image by triple789

Old Brand:  Cow Pie

2.  New Brand:  ART DECO

  Old Brand:  Toxic Mold

3.  New Brand:  STREET AFICIONADO

  Old Brand:  Homeless Person

4.  New Brand:  RELIGIOUS EXTROVERT

  Old Brand:  Terrorist

5.  New Brand:  MR. HOTTIE

  Old Brand:  Satan, Prince of Darkness, The Evil One, etc…

and finally…

6.  New Brand:  CONSUMERISTS

   Old Name:  Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, Jack…
 
 
“when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”
 
                                                 -James Whitcomb Riley
 
Murphy

Czar, Czar Wherever You Are!

August 19, 2009

With all of the Czar’s being appointed by our President I decided to do a little fact checking into this radical way of ruling our government.  First, when I googled “Czar” in Google Images-the image above is the first one you see.  Of course this image was there as well:

So—that really doesn’t help me understand what he is doing—-or does it?  Nope, it doesn’t-moving on…

The first picture however, took me to a blog post about taking over the government called “How to Run a Country and Get Away With It.”  Interestingly this post was published in October of 2007!  So wait just a minute, either I am having a Shelia Jackson Lee Moment or am I right that the President took office in 2009?  It just seems like he has been there forever.

So what is this all about.  The author states that “Appointing a Czar is a handy way of deflecting bad publicity on a difficult issue. Drugs, for example have been a hot issue for a long time and have caused successive governments major difficulties. Appoint a Czar and these problems simply go away.”  The author by the way is talking about the UK.  He correctly points out that:

“Firstly, any successes could be claimed as government successes as the results came out in police reports and therefore “ the new crime policies are working”. Secondly any failures can be attributed to the failure of the Czar himself and not the government. And finally, any police excesses, despite the fact that you have encouraged tough policies, can be targeted at individual police forces or crime units and therefore the government also looks liberal and humanitarian. It’s a win-win situation. Power without responsibility, perfect!”

Excellent points!  And admittedly, that may be the reasons that George Bush, Clinton and George Bush appointed such individuals.  However, in those three cases it was only a handful of “czars” that were appointed and in reality–any failures of such individuals were heaped on the President by the media anyway.

So why has Obama appointed over 3 dozen!  Let’s look to the Constitution–I’m sure it allows for such things:

Well obviously that is too dang hard to read–but let’s assume for a moment that this language is in there somewhere around say Article II, section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

So, I suppose he can appoint Czars in one of two ways–either with the Advice and Consent of the Senate–oops–he hasn’t done that—or as “otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”  Hmmmm… I wonder of such a law exists?

Well as luck would have it there is a law for the Drug Czar–so maybe Bush and Clinton and Bush weren’t doing something so bad after all.  The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 allows for the appointment of a director.  Under Obama that person is Gil Kerlikowske.

But how about the others?

Say…Carol Browner the “Energy Czar“—she of course headed the EPA under Clinton and on her last day in office, oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. 

How about Todd Stern the “Climate Change Czar” or Special Envoy on Climate Change (potato, potahhto).  He was actually appointed by Hilary Clinton–the Secretary of State.  What????

How about Adolfo Carrion, Jr, the “Urban Czar“-a specialist in Cash and Carry scandals.  Great choice.

Or the others:

Tech Czar-Aneesh Chopra(who answers your calls as a level 2 specialist whenever your Comcast digital service acts up)

Government Performance Czar-Jeffrey Zients (who will answer your calls in the order in which they were received–your wait time is now 19288 minutes)

Infotech Czar-Vivek Kundra(who is a level 3 specialist and will take your call when Aneesh Chopra cannot figure out why you cannot access the Internet)

Health Czar-Nancy Ann DeParle(a former shoplifter and ineffective at doing anything by praising Obama for his ridiculous Health Care bill)

Bailout Czar or Tarp Czar-Herb Allison (that has worked very well–don’t you think?

Guantanamo Closure Czar-Daniel Fried (wonder what he is getting paid to take the political hit that this hasn’t happened yet?

I could go on for days, there is a Stimulus Oversight Czar, Border Czar, Counterterrorism Czar (not Jack Bauer), Regulatory Czar, Pay Czar, Car Czar, Economic Czars, Intelligence Czar, Great Lakes Czar (what??), Copyright Czar (seriously?), Food Car, Water Czar, War Czar, Domestic Violence Czar etc…..

None of these individuals have the authority to force any company or person or agency to do anything–at least not legally.  So why, why appoint all of these individuals–well if you look through history you will see that every leader that has appointed numerous individuals to carry out their bidding under the title of “Head” or “Director” or “Czar” did so as a way to grab power where the Country’s laws didn’t otherwise allow for such a power grab.

In America–lest you forget–we have a balance of power–these individuals cannot have any unless Congress allows it and there is a legal reason for it–such as the Drug Czar.

Russian Czars brutalized people–especially the Jews in Russia.  Hitler appointed numerous Leaders of the High Command to rule the Nazi party and carry out his policies and commands–including genocide.

Our Founding Fathers put our system in place for a reason–I guess that along with Health care, Cap and Trade, Stimulus, Obama just thinks that the Constitution should be trashed.

You know its bad when a Democratic Senator thinks it is unconstitutional.  But then again, that is Senator Byrd and after all–he used to be in the KKK, so his objection is skewed a bit.

I guess I should just be quiet–after all this is just all part of “Hope and Change.”

-Murphy