Mind Numbed Robot

Here's an open letter to President Obama that he will never see. Not because I didn't send it. I did this weekend in the form of faxes. I just want to stick it up here on the interwebz Mr President, in case you would like to refer to it later. You know, in case you forgot.

Dear Mr. President,

Sir, Please stop what you are doing and listen to the people you serve. We don't share your view of America. We The People want you and Congress to start over on Health Care Reform. There are better ways to help people get medical care than enslaving the rest of us (US).

Just had to get that out of the way.

Now, today's topic is Free Speech or more aptly, the restriction of it.
Why you ask?
Because I made this cool Motivator. That's why.

Back in August 2009, Barack Obama said that he wanted his critics to shut up and get out of the way.

Then, in October 2009 he cosponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations.

In an article at Human Events Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch quotes legal expert Eugene Volokh:

"If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech," he explains, "presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it"” He adds that in order to be consistent, "the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that incites hostility will indeed be punished..."

More recently, speaking of the POTUS's State of the Union Address, Robert Spencer rightly calls out Obama for criticizing the Supreme Court:

"During his State of the Union address, Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court for overturning major portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. But the Supreme Court was upholding the freedom of speech: when the high court struck down key McCain-Feingold provisions last month, its ruling declared that "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Is there a pattern here?

Whatever he says he deplores, he deploys.

This man is the biggest threat to our freedoms in the last one hundred years, possibly evah. While he's cosponsoring resolutions at the UN which denounce incitement and hatred, he has shown that he has had no qualms with those tactics in the past, as when he suggested using those same tools against his opponents during the presidential campaign.

Watch him. Watch what he says, then watch what he does. I guarantee you the two are diametrically opposed.

So now, we are invited to watch his narcissism on display as he is obsessed with shoving his beloved Health Care Plan down the throats of an unwilling populace. (Sorry for that visual.) Are we to sit idly by while this happens? That is what the authors of this little play would have us do. That or fawn all over them like sycophantic groupies backstage at a rock concert.

I can't and won't do it.
Period.

Send your faxes also.

Side note-
Thinking out loud - I can't be sure but I would think that there could be an effect on the mind of someone who is constantly told A when Z is actually true and is proven to be so. One could also speculate that it would be akin to a psychological torture or conditioning of some kind if perpetuated time and time again. (Lather, Rinse, Repeat.) I wonder what that might be called...

Any psychiatrists/neurologists in the house?

From the Houston Chronicle:

Paul goes from ridicule to respect

No one would have been surprised if the Lake Jackson congressman had slipped off the political radar after his 2008 quixotic bid for the presidency, his ambitions for higher office thwarted.
But Paul has refused to go out to the political pasture to live in comfortable irrelevance. As odd as it may seem, he has become one of the most influential Republicans in a capital city dominated by liberal Democrats.
The subject that has brought him to prominence is the same issue that subjected him to ridicule from establishment Republicans for years: his long-standing opposition to the nation's monetary system and the Federal Reserve Board that prints money and controls its supply.
"On economic matters, he was seen as a way outside the mainstream," University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray said. "His views were somewhat 19th century in the view of a lot of economists."
Well, they say history repeats itself, and suddenly Paul's "19th-century" thinking seems appealing to those suffering through the first economic meltdown of the 21st century...

...Paul's proposal to audit the Federal Reserve — first introduced by the Texas congressman more than 20 years ago — recently sailed through the House Financial Services Committee.
His bill has an astonishing 317 co-sponsors in the House, three-quarters of the chamber's members.

Surprising to the Chronicle maybe, but not to me.
I don't think Paul's economic ideas are far from our founders' ideals.

As far as I'm concerned, you can take all the new fangled economist's hokum, mingle it with the strategies of so-called prosperity from the leftists, bundle it up in a burlap sack, and all you'd have is a bag of the same BS, ready to set ablaze and left on the porch of the American taxpayer, smoking, stinking and ready to be stomped upon and made all the worse because of it.

These people aren't solving the problem. They are making the problems worse, and by design.

Why not just let common sense and the free market make it's own case for prosperity? Oh yea, that would make too much sense and not enough money for the bureaucrats. Sorry 'bout your bad luck.

I could say more, but it's late and sleep is calling.
Ciao.