I'm not normally one to use the phrase in the title, but check this news item out, posted today in the news:
"WASHINGTON – The House on Thursday took up legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico's 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence. The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future."
I had blogged days ago that this would happen. I got a lot of emails from folks who said I was nuts, paranoid etc.
But I'm used to that :o)
/
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
California Hypocrites
Californians - and their leaders - are calling for a boycott of the entire state of Arizona because they (incorrectly) perceive Arizona's new immigration law promotes discrimination - even though the law specifically prohibits discrimination and racial profiling. But Californians and other liberals are not concerned with facts - they have an agenda to push forward.
What California fails to tell you is that California does hundreds of millions of dollars in business with countries that are horrendous defilers of human rights - like China. In fact, even as they protest and boycott Arizona, Cal-Asia and other California organizations and agencies are seeking to expand their business dealings with China even further, and China is trying to get involved with the building and financing of California High Speed Rail.
So why do liberals not have a problem with the severe human rights issues of China, and will contribute to it by sending hundreds of millions to China but will boycott one of their fellow states for passing a law that mimics federal law without changing federal law?
There is a word for that - hypocrites!
/
What California fails to tell you is that California does hundreds of millions of dollars in business with countries that are horrendous defilers of human rights - like China. In fact, even as they protest and boycott Arizona, Cal-Asia and other California organizations and agencies are seeking to expand their business dealings with China even further, and China is trying to get involved with the building and financing of California High Speed Rail.
So why do liberals not have a problem with the severe human rights issues of China, and will contribute to it by sending hundreds of millions to China but will boycott one of their fellow states for passing a law that mimics federal law without changing federal law?
There is a word for that - hypocrites!
/
Pop, Goes The...
People often puzzle me profoundly. Like the woman who sticks with an abusive spouse, or the citizen who keeps voting for the same people who have been treating them with disdain and disrespect.
In one particular instance, the disdain is so grand that it is a wonder the politician at the heart of it could get elected dog catcher. Yet, for 28 years the people of Pennsylvania have kept putting him in the Senate. His name - Arlen Specter.
Specter was a Democrat in 1965 when he won an election for Philadelphia district attorney on the Republican line -- so he then became a Republican. This should have been a tip-off that the man had few core principles, and therefore would have no problem betraying others if it would benefit him. Yet, the folks of Pennsylvania closed their eyes.
So it came as no surprise to me that on April 28, 2009, he switched parties yet again. He said polls showed his chances in a GOP primary rematch against conservative former congressman Pat Toomey were "bleak," so he was casting his lot with Democrats instead.
And once again he betrays those who supported him simply so he could remain in power. His ego, his own personal ambitions were more important to him than the country he was elected to serve. And make no mistake - Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents in serving the nation, not the state. Serving the state is the job of STATE legislators.
Another telling point that shows Specter's character (or lack thereof) lies in the fact that the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has endorsed him since 1998. Rick Bloomingdale, the group's incoming president, said this of Specter, "We know how to work with him. When we give him what he needs, he generally supports us 9 out of 10 times."
It would appear that Spector not only will betray anyone when it becomes convenient, but that his position and vote on important matters can be bought by special interests like the unions.
When I was a young boy growing up in rural New Hampshire back in the '50's, we had a name for people like Specter...
Weasel.
/
In one particular instance, the disdain is so grand that it is a wonder the politician at the heart of it could get elected dog catcher. Yet, for 28 years the people of Pennsylvania have kept putting him in the Senate. His name - Arlen Specter.
Specter was a Democrat in 1965 when he won an election for Philadelphia district attorney on the Republican line -- so he then became a Republican. This should have been a tip-off that the man had few core principles, and therefore would have no problem betraying others if it would benefit him. Yet, the folks of Pennsylvania closed their eyes.
So it came as no surprise to me that on April 28, 2009, he switched parties yet again. He said polls showed his chances in a GOP primary rematch against conservative former congressman Pat Toomey were "bleak," so he was casting his lot with Democrats instead.
And once again he betrays those who supported him simply so he could remain in power. His ego, his own personal ambitions were more important to him than the country he was elected to serve. And make no mistake - Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents in serving the nation, not the state. Serving the state is the job of STATE legislators.
Another telling point that shows Specter's character (or lack thereof) lies in the fact that the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has endorsed him since 1998. Rick Bloomingdale, the group's incoming president, said this of Specter, "We know how to work with him. When we give him what he needs, he generally supports us 9 out of 10 times."
It would appear that Spector not only will betray anyone when it becomes convenient, but that his position and vote on important matters can be bought by special interests like the unions.
When I was a young boy growing up in rural New Hampshire back in the '50's, we had a name for people like Specter...
Weasel.
/
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
How To Reduce The Deficit
President Obama needs a committe to try and figure out how to increase taxes to pay down the ballooning deficit. But there is a better, simpler way, and does not require any more taxes. In fact, it could actually reduce taxes. Of course, that is precisely why Congress will never do this. They need to keep buying their seats.
Here is what I would do - tough medicine, but like any other medicine, once you get it down it's not so bad.
1) Take the $400 billion of the "stimulus money" not yet spent and put it back into the Treasury toward the deficit. It is a waste of taxpayer money and the cost is far too great
2) Any funds still not yet spent for "pork" projects should be returned to the Treasury and paid toward the deficit - roughly $80 billion. We do not need pork at this time, nor do we need to allow Congressmen to purchase votes in this way
3) Disallow any future pork projects - any project that is not for the good of the entire nation should not be getting paid for from income taxes. The guy in Maine should not have to pay for a skateboard park in Florida. That is a Florida project, not a federal one.
4) Reduce taxes on any small business that employs more than 10 persons, allowing them to hire at least one new worker for every 10 currently employed. New hires will put money into the economy, and tax $$$ into the Treasury.
5) Remove wasted entitlements. In 2010 welfare will cost $750 billion, of which more than half goes to unworthy recipients. Anyone receiving government assistance should be required to show that they are unable (not unwilling) to support themselves through no fault of thier own. Assistance should not be going to the lazy, or to drug dealers, or criminals just because they are poor. Poverty should not be the litmus test. The litmus test should be NEED caused by circumstances beyond their control. As the Bible says, waste not your seed upon barren ground, or thorny ground, or rocky ground. Sow your seed only on fertile soil. The $300+ billion returned to the Treasury EACH YEAR, and applied to the deficit.
These simple strategies would reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and $8 trillion over 10 years.
But like I said, our esteemed Congressional grifters would never do any of these things, because it does not allow them to buy votes, fatten their own wallets or provide negotiation chips for gaining greater personal power in Congress. Their own personal needs come before the welfare of the nation, and that is a shame.
/
Here is what I would do - tough medicine, but like any other medicine, once you get it down it's not so bad.
1) Take the $400 billion of the "stimulus money" not yet spent and put it back into the Treasury toward the deficit. It is a waste of taxpayer money and the cost is far too great
2) Any funds still not yet spent for "pork" projects should be returned to the Treasury and paid toward the deficit - roughly $80 billion. We do not need pork at this time, nor do we need to allow Congressmen to purchase votes in this way
3) Disallow any future pork projects - any project that is not for the good of the entire nation should not be getting paid for from income taxes. The guy in Maine should not have to pay for a skateboard park in Florida. That is a Florida project, not a federal one.
4) Reduce taxes on any small business that employs more than 10 persons, allowing them to hire at least one new worker for every 10 currently employed. New hires will put money into the economy, and tax $$$ into the Treasury.
5) Remove wasted entitlements. In 2010 welfare will cost $750 billion, of which more than half goes to unworthy recipients. Anyone receiving government assistance should be required to show that they are unable (not unwilling) to support themselves through no fault of thier own. Assistance should not be going to the lazy, or to drug dealers, or criminals just because they are poor. Poverty should not be the litmus test. The litmus test should be NEED caused by circumstances beyond their control. As the Bible says, waste not your seed upon barren ground, or thorny ground, or rocky ground. Sow your seed only on fertile soil. The $300+ billion returned to the Treasury EACH YEAR, and applied to the deficit.
These simple strategies would reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and $8 trillion over 10 years.
But like I said, our esteemed Congressional grifters would never do any of these things, because it does not allow them to buy votes, fatten their own wallets or provide negotiation chips for gaining greater personal power in Congress. Their own personal needs come before the welfare of the nation, and that is a shame.
/
Working On That "58 States"
During his campaign, Obama stated he had campaigned in 57 states with only one to go. It looks like he may be trying to build up to that.
Unless you watch Fox News, you will not hear about this, but on Thursday the Democrat Congress plans to hold a non-binding vote to admit Puerto Rico into statehood. This has been purposely kept out of the news.
So, what's the problem? And why now? Because Puerto Rico has 3,014,000 voting age citizens - more than enough to swing an election. And if the Dems hold this vote, it will show Puerto Ricans that Democrats are their friends and allies. And eventually, when Puerto Rico does become a state, the voters will be primarily Democrat.
But there is another reason - this vote will also be a show for latinos, to help galvanize the latino vote here in the states - and those that WILL be included when the Democrats give illegals amnesty. That, by itself, would equal a voting bloc of tens of millions. Democrats plan on making latinos dependent upon them just as they did with other minorities. It is the only way they can win elections.
In short, this non-binding vote is designed for one purpose - to help Democrats "fix" future elections. And I have a problem with fixing elections.
/
Unless you watch Fox News, you will not hear about this, but on Thursday the Democrat Congress plans to hold a non-binding vote to admit Puerto Rico into statehood. This has been purposely kept out of the news.
So, what's the problem? And why now? Because Puerto Rico has 3,014,000 voting age citizens - more than enough to swing an election. And if the Dems hold this vote, it will show Puerto Ricans that Democrats are their friends and allies. And eventually, when Puerto Rico does become a state, the voters will be primarily Democrat.
But there is another reason - this vote will also be a show for latinos, to help galvanize the latino vote here in the states - and those that WILL be included when the Democrats give illegals amnesty. That, by itself, would equal a voting bloc of tens of millions. Democrats plan on making latinos dependent upon them just as they did with other minorities. It is the only way they can win elections.
In short, this non-binding vote is designed for one purpose - to help Democrats "fix" future elections. And I have a problem with fixing elections.
/
Quiz
OK, so here is a little quiz question for you. Please think about it, and see what you come up with.
A powerful, older man whom we will call John has been married many years. He briefly meets a beautiful young woman whom we will call Margaret at a function, and also meets several other women at that function, none of which are quite as beautiful or young as the lovely Margaret.
A few days later, John calls Margaret on the phone. He talks with her about sports, marriage and a variety of other conversational topics.
The question is this: does it appear that John is just being benignly friendly to someone he hardly knows by calling her up on the phone just to pass the breeze, or is the older, married John hitting on the beautiful young Margaret?
Call me cynical, but as a happily married older man myself, I would never, ever under any circumstances make phone calls to young, beautiful women I hardly know, let alone do it just to pass the time.
Of course, by now you know I have something on my mind. This exact scenario did take place. The powerful older man was Vice President Joe Biden, who briefly met Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View". He later placed a personal call to her, and talked about things like football and marriage. It is interesting to note that he also briefly met Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg on that show, but he never attempted to call them.
Sounds to me like Ol' married Joe is on the make. And I hope Elizabeth is wise enough to run, not walk from any further contact with Joe. After all, overtures from a Vice President can be very flattering and could turn almost any gal's head.
/
A powerful, older man whom we will call John has been married many years. He briefly meets a beautiful young woman whom we will call Margaret at a function, and also meets several other women at that function, none of which are quite as beautiful or young as the lovely Margaret.
A few days later, John calls Margaret on the phone. He talks with her about sports, marriage and a variety of other conversational topics.
The question is this: does it appear that John is just being benignly friendly to someone he hardly knows by calling her up on the phone just to pass the breeze, or is the older, married John hitting on the beautiful young Margaret?
Call me cynical, but as a happily married older man myself, I would never, ever under any circumstances make phone calls to young, beautiful women I hardly know, let alone do it just to pass the time.
Of course, by now you know I have something on my mind. This exact scenario did take place. The powerful older man was Vice President Joe Biden, who briefly met Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View". He later placed a personal call to her, and talked about things like football and marriage. It is interesting to note that he also briefly met Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg on that show, but he never attempted to call them.
Sounds to me like Ol' married Joe is on the make. And I hope Elizabeth is wise enough to run, not walk from any further contact with Joe. After all, overtures from a Vice President can be very flattering and could turn almost any gal's head.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)