No, not the girls of Hooters. At least, not for the purposes of this post. This has to do with some interesting figures that have surfaced that have relevance to the newly passed Health Care bill.
Congress depended a LOT upon the guesstimates of the CBO in order to con people into supporting the bill. But are you aware that in 1965 the CBO estimated Medicare would cost 12 billion, and escalate to 36 billion by 1990. However, it actually escalated to a whopping 107 billion by 1990 - the CBO was off by 300%. And 20 years later it is costing 500 billion a year. Why anyone would trust CBO guesstimates is beyond me.
Here is another - when Universal Health Care was passed in Massachusetts in 2006 it was said it would only cost 88 billion. Just 4 years later and that paltry 88 million is up to 900 million - more than 1000% higher than promised.
Based on such "estimates", it seems that Obama's health care bill will likely cost us at least three times the amount the CBO estimated, or roughly 3 TRILLION dollars over 10 years, pushing up the deficit by more than 2.3 trillion. And that is a LOW estimate based on history.
Brace yourselves, folks. It's gonna be a long, bumpy and dangerous ride.
/
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A Loan? Or Theft?
When the government chose to do the bailouts, Obama referred to it as "the American people were loaning this money" to those entities. The term "loan" infers that the people doing the loaning will get their investment back.
Well, the government "loaned" $45 billion taxpayer dollars to Citibank. The government now plans to sell much of those shares for $32.5 billion.
However, we, the "loaning" taxpayers will never see a dime of that money back. If, indeed, that money were used to pay down the deficit, then yes, we would be getting the money back. But it can pretty much be guaranteed that the government will use that money for other government programs.
What this means: the government STOLE $45 billion dollars from us with no intention of ever paying it back. It simply gets added to the debt that WE will have to pay off in the form of higher taxes. So, if you think you have not been "taxed", think again!
That money was taken from our children - it needs to be given back. But it will not be. Mark my word - that money will NEVER be used to pay back the taxpayers.
/
Well, the government "loaned" $45 billion taxpayer dollars to Citibank. The government now plans to sell much of those shares for $32.5 billion.
However, we, the "loaning" taxpayers will never see a dime of that money back. If, indeed, that money were used to pay down the deficit, then yes, we would be getting the money back. But it can pretty much be guaranteed that the government will use that money for other government programs.
What this means: the government STOLE $45 billion dollars from us with no intention of ever paying it back. It simply gets added to the debt that WE will have to pay off in the form of higher taxes. So, if you think you have not been "taxed", think again!
That money was taken from our children - it needs to be given back. But it will not be. Mark my word - that money will NEVER be used to pay back the taxpayers.
/
Hard to Swallow
In an interview this morning Barak Obama said he thinks the Tea Party is built around a core of people who think he's a socialist.
That's hard to believe. Let's see - he took over banks; took over insurance companies; took over the auto industry, took over health care; took over education. And he is working on Cap & Trade to take over energy, and who knows what's next.
Even Al Sharpton and Howard Dean, both hard-core liberal Democrats have stated on television that Obana is a socialist. Even they recognize it, and I doubt they attend Tea Parties.
Yep - hard to believe. Very hard to believe that MORE people do not realize he is a socialist.
I would go farther, based on all of his associations, teachings and writings since birth, all of which were Marxist. Even his dear mother and father were confessed Marxists. His mentors, like Saul Alinski were Marxist. Reverend Wright is a Marxist, bigot and anti-Semite. His friend Bill Ayers is a Marxist. At least four of his appointees are on video as proclaiming to be Marxist, communist or admirers of Mao Tse-Tung and Che Guevera. And he even had a Mao Christmas bulb on the White House Christmas tree. His new "spiritual leader" is Marxist. Once elected, he stopped going to church, and on Palm Sunday when Christians are called to worship, he flew off for a photo op in Afghanistan instead.
Maybe he does not realize that he is a socialist. But facts are facts. It it walks, flies and quacks like a duck...
Anyone who wants a socialist government should move to one. But America is a Republic, and the Constitution guarantees that (Article 4, Section 4: "Republican government -
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". Anyone seeking to change America to socialism is in violation of the Constitution - you know, that quaint little thing Obama, Pelosi and Reid SWORE to uphold in their oaths of office.
/
That's hard to believe. Let's see - he took over banks; took over insurance companies; took over the auto industry, took over health care; took over education. And he is working on Cap & Trade to take over energy, and who knows what's next.
Even Al Sharpton and Howard Dean, both hard-core liberal Democrats have stated on television that Obana is a socialist. Even they recognize it, and I doubt they attend Tea Parties.
Yep - hard to believe. Very hard to believe that MORE people do not realize he is a socialist.
I would go farther, based on all of his associations, teachings and writings since birth, all of which were Marxist. Even his dear mother and father were confessed Marxists. His mentors, like Saul Alinski were Marxist. Reverend Wright is a Marxist, bigot and anti-Semite. His friend Bill Ayers is a Marxist. At least four of his appointees are on video as proclaiming to be Marxist, communist or admirers of Mao Tse-Tung and Che Guevera. And he even had a Mao Christmas bulb on the White House Christmas tree. His new "spiritual leader" is Marxist. Once elected, he stopped going to church, and on Palm Sunday when Christians are called to worship, he flew off for a photo op in Afghanistan instead.
Maybe he does not realize that he is a socialist. But facts are facts. It it walks, flies and quacks like a duck...
Anyone who wants a socialist government should move to one. But America is a Republic, and the Constitution guarantees that (Article 4, Section 4: "Republican government -
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". Anyone seeking to change America to socialism is in violation of the Constitution - you know, that quaint little thing Obama, Pelosi and Reid SWORE to uphold in their oaths of office.
/
Monday, March 29, 2010
Too True To Be Funny
This is too true to be funny.
The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.
A) A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B) A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C) A billion hours ago our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age.
D) A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E.) A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, At the rate our government Is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain...let's take a look at New Orleans ...It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
After Katrina Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) asked Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number...What does it mean?
A) Well , if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) You each get $516,528.
B) Or.... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787..
C) Or... If you are a family of four....Your family gets $2,066,012. Washington , D. C HELLO! Are all your calculators broken??
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago.....And our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt.... We had the largest middle class in the world..... And Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What happened?
Can you spell: 'POLITICIANS!'
And here is the truly scary part - they are no longer talking billions. It's now TRILLIONS, which is 1000 times more! The Health Care Bill at just under a trillion, if stacked in single dollar bills, would be 60,000 miles high - that's 1/4 of the way to the moon.
And you still have to Press '1' For English. What the heck has happened?
/
The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.
A) A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B) A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C) A billion hours ago our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age.
D) A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E.) A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, At the rate our government Is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain...let's take a look at New Orleans ...It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
After Katrina Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) asked Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number...What does it mean?
A) Well , if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) You each get $516,528.
B) Or.... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787..
C) Or... If you are a family of four....Your family gets $2,066,012. Washington , D. C HELLO! Are all your calculators broken??
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago.....And our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt.... We had the largest middle class in the world..... And Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What happened?
Can you spell: 'POLITICIANS!'
And here is the truly scary part - they are no longer talking billions. It's now TRILLIONS, which is 1000 times more! The Health Care Bill at just under a trillion, if stacked in single dollar bills, would be 60,000 miles high - that's 1/4 of the way to the moon.
And you still have to Press '1' For English. What the heck has happened?
/
Sunday, March 28, 2010
It Does Not Get More Obvious
For years I have been exposing how the progressives on the left use "spin" to distort the truth. But rarely does it get more obvious than the following example. In it, spinmeister Bruce Drake (Politics Daily) stated this about the new health care law:
"However, a plurality -- 48 percent -- say it will improve peoples' chances to get health insurance compared to 25 percent who say it will not and 25 percent say things will remain about the same."
Now look closely - he has broken up those who do not think it will improve the chances into two separate groups - those who say it will not improve, and those who say it will stay the same - in other words, will not improve.
Like most progressives who rely upon deceit, Drake is so caught up in his own lies that he cannot even hide it anymore. In order to make it LOOK like "the plurality" is the 48%, he had to break up the true plurality of 50% into two pieces - those who do not think it will improve, and those who do not think it will improve (because it will remain the same). That is like saying 48% think tomorrow will be sunny while 25% do not think it will be sunny and 25% think it will be overcast. Any way you cut it, that means 50% think it will not be sunny.
Folks, it matters not where you stand politically. What does matter is that you look more closely at the garbage you are being fed, even by those you trust, and do not allow them to spin you into a world of lies and distortions. Look closely at what they are really saying - and even more closely at what they are not saying. Lying by omission is still deceitful.
/
"However, a plurality -- 48 percent -- say it will improve peoples' chances to get health insurance compared to 25 percent who say it will not and 25 percent say things will remain about the same."
Now look closely - he has broken up those who do not think it will improve the chances into two separate groups - those who say it will not improve, and those who say it will stay the same - in other words, will not improve.
Like most progressives who rely upon deceit, Drake is so caught up in his own lies that he cannot even hide it anymore. In order to make it LOOK like "the plurality" is the 48%, he had to break up the true plurality of 50% into two pieces - those who do not think it will improve, and those who do not think it will improve (because it will remain the same). That is like saying 48% think tomorrow will be sunny while 25% do not think it will be sunny and 25% think it will be overcast. Any way you cut it, that means 50% think it will not be sunny.
Folks, it matters not where you stand politically. What does matter is that you look more closely at the garbage you are being fed, even by those you trust, and do not allow them to spin you into a world of lies and distortions. Look closely at what they are really saying - and even more closely at what they are not saying. Lying by omission is still deceitful.
/
Some Will Enjoy This
I will assume there are those readers who are, at the very least, skeptical about Al Gore's "Global Warming" rant. This one is for you. Taken from today's news...
Climate Change Killed Dinosaurs, Scientist Says
"(March 28) -- Was it long-term climate change, rather than a rogue asteroid, that killed off the dinosaurs?That's the conclusion of German paleontologist Michael Prauss, who studied 65-million-year-old fossils drilled out of the earth in the Brazos River area of Texas and argues that radical changes to the flora and fauna of the era began long before arrival of the massive space rock widely associated with one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of the planet."
If this "scientist" (remember, "scientists" claim global warming) is correct, then it seems climate change is not exactly a new phenomenon, nor is it caused by driving our SUV's. If this scientist is incorrect, then it only goes to prove that "scientists" can be - and often are - wrong, and major, costly geo-political decisions that affect the people should not be based solely on the theories of scientists.
But it is good to know that there apparently is NOT a "consensus" that man's activities are responsible for any global warming.
If you recall, I have previously published charts - by a compendium of scientists using scientific data - that plainly shows the Earth is normally much warmer than it is now, by nature, and there has been constant back-and-forth climate change since the Earth was formed. It is something that many scientists of today should learn more about - it's called CYCLES. Everything has a cycle. Even climate. And there is nothing anyone can, or should, do about it.
/
Climate Change Killed Dinosaurs, Scientist Says
"(March 28) -- Was it long-term climate change, rather than a rogue asteroid, that killed off the dinosaurs?That's the conclusion of German paleontologist Michael Prauss, who studied 65-million-year-old fossils drilled out of the earth in the Brazos River area of Texas and argues that radical changes to the flora and fauna of the era began long before arrival of the massive space rock widely associated with one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of the planet."
If this "scientist" (remember, "scientists" claim global warming) is correct, then it seems climate change is not exactly a new phenomenon, nor is it caused by driving our SUV's. If this scientist is incorrect, then it only goes to prove that "scientists" can be - and often are - wrong, and major, costly geo-political decisions that affect the people should not be based solely on the theories of scientists.
But it is good to know that there apparently is NOT a "consensus" that man's activities are responsible for any global warming.
If you recall, I have previously published charts - by a compendium of scientists using scientific data - that plainly shows the Earth is normally much warmer than it is now, by nature, and there has been constant back-and-forth climate change since the Earth was formed. It is something that many scientists of today should learn more about - it's called CYCLES. Everything has a cycle. Even climate. And there is nothing anyone can, or should, do about it.
/
Dissing Marriage
Once again Democrats in Congress have chosen to disrespect and penalize marriage, as they have done every time they have held office since FDR.
The new "health care" bill, now law, penalizes marriage. If you are married, the most you can earn before getting hit with serious additional tax is $250,000. But single people are exempt up to $200,000 each. So, if you merely live together without benefit of marriage, your total exemption is a whopping $400,000.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of the government penalizing one group while coddling and rewarding another. It peeves me even more when the penalties are on those who play by the rules while the rewards go to those who refuse to.
Responsible companies - no breaks. Irresponsible companies - bailouts.
Responsible homeowners - no breaks. Irresponsible homeowners - bailouts.
Married people - penalized. People shacking up - rewarded.
Hard workers - taxed heavily. Lazy non-workers - free support from those tax dollars.
I know a man who never works - but he gets numerous young girls pregnant, then gets them on welfare and takes half of their welfare benefits. He lives like a king, on OUR MONEY, while we slave and those girls live in poverty with their illegitimate children.
As manager of the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire for 6 years, I saw perpetual drunks stumble out of the free shelter to the welfare office, get their food stamps paid for with our hard-earned money, then stumble on down to the local corner store where they traded them at 60 cents on the dollar for more booze. Then they stumble back to the free shelter and eat in the free soup kitchen. If they are getting free food at the soup kitchen, and free housing at the shelter, why in Hell are we paying to give them free food stamps they can use for booze and drugs?
The system is wrong. And it was made wrong by those who created the entitlements - FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, along with a corrupt Congress.
We should not allow the federal government to even be involved in entitlements - Constitutionally that is the job of the states and the people. And any entitlements should be governed not by financial condition, but by need. There is a big difference between being poor and being needy. The needy are those among the poor who are unable, through no fault of their own, to care for themselves. The rest of the poor are not needy - they could do better if they chose to. They could choose to not be lazy. They could choose to not get started on drugs and alcohol. They could make a lot of choices that would get them out of poverty. They are not needy - just wanting.
Our tax money, designated to help the needy should be limited to the actual needy. Every dollar not spent to support a lazy person who gets young girls pregnant is another dollar that could be used to help someone in real need.
Help the truly helpless, not the truly clueless.
It is time we told the government to stop wasting money on unnecessary entitlements to unworthy people, and to stop penalizing those who play by the rules while rewarding those who do not.
Take your country back. Make it the America that it once was when we were growing to become the strongest, greatest nation on Earth.
See you at the polls - be there, or don't complain when things go wrong.
/
The new "health care" bill, now law, penalizes marriage. If you are married, the most you can earn before getting hit with serious additional tax is $250,000. But single people are exempt up to $200,000 each. So, if you merely live together without benefit of marriage, your total exemption is a whopping $400,000.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of the government penalizing one group while coddling and rewarding another. It peeves me even more when the penalties are on those who play by the rules while the rewards go to those who refuse to.
Responsible companies - no breaks. Irresponsible companies - bailouts.
Responsible homeowners - no breaks. Irresponsible homeowners - bailouts.
Married people - penalized. People shacking up - rewarded.
Hard workers - taxed heavily. Lazy non-workers - free support from those tax dollars.
I know a man who never works - but he gets numerous young girls pregnant, then gets them on welfare and takes half of their welfare benefits. He lives like a king, on OUR MONEY, while we slave and those girls live in poverty with their illegitimate children.
As manager of the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire for 6 years, I saw perpetual drunks stumble out of the free shelter to the welfare office, get their food stamps paid for with our hard-earned money, then stumble on down to the local corner store where they traded them at 60 cents on the dollar for more booze. Then they stumble back to the free shelter and eat in the free soup kitchen. If they are getting free food at the soup kitchen, and free housing at the shelter, why in Hell are we paying to give them free food stamps they can use for booze and drugs?
The system is wrong. And it was made wrong by those who created the entitlements - FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, along with a corrupt Congress.
We should not allow the federal government to even be involved in entitlements - Constitutionally that is the job of the states and the people. And any entitlements should be governed not by financial condition, but by need. There is a big difference between being poor and being needy. The needy are those among the poor who are unable, through no fault of their own, to care for themselves. The rest of the poor are not needy - they could do better if they chose to. They could choose to not be lazy. They could choose to not get started on drugs and alcohol. They could make a lot of choices that would get them out of poverty. They are not needy - just wanting.
Our tax money, designated to help the needy should be limited to the actual needy. Every dollar not spent to support a lazy person who gets young girls pregnant is another dollar that could be used to help someone in real need.
Help the truly helpless, not the truly clueless.
It is time we told the government to stop wasting money on unnecessary entitlements to unworthy people, and to stop penalizing those who play by the rules while rewarding those who do not.
Take your country back. Make it the America that it once was when we were growing to become the strongest, greatest nation on Earth.
See you at the polls - be there, or don't complain when things go wrong.
/
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Fixin' What Is Wrong
Let us take a little journey of the mind for a few moments, to see if we can determine first WHAT is wrong with America today, and what is the BEST way to fix it. Let us leave out all political parties and talking points. Let us set aside all the BS and distractions that politicians toss out there to keep us confused. Let us just use simple logic, just for a few moments.
First, what is wrong? I'll punch up the things I believe are in serious disrepair, and why:
1) Our nation owes too much money - the wealth of the world is attracted to the safest, strongest most stable places. We grew strong because that USED to be America. If you had money to invest, is that not what you would do? By owing so much money, we show the world that their wealth would not be safe here, and they will look elsewhere. China is getting the money. Even ours.
2) The ONLY reason we owe so much is the cost of government. The only way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce its size.
3) Wealth goes where it is welcome, and treated well. Countries with the lowest taxes are the countries that atttract business, jobs and wealth. Currently, our tax structure is very unfriendly for businesses and investors. And the reason our taxes are so high is the cost and size of government, above
4) Loss of freedom. Government can only grow when we give it the power. To give power to the government, we must give it up for ourselves. You cannot give it, and still keep it. When government grows, we lose freedoms, as well as our wealth. When freedom is lost, we lose incentive to work, incentive to innovate. We lose some of the lust for life. We also tend to anger more quickly and easily.
5) Illegal immigration is tearing us apart, causing major divisions in our nation
I believe those are the major problems that, if not fixed, will destroy America. And the only people who can fix it is - US. We control these things at the voting booth.
I will not advocate voting for any party - party voting is what got us into this mess. Instead, every American citizen has an obligation to vote for whichever candidate promises to actively work to fix our problems and leave partisan politics at the door. Some may be Republican, some Democrat, some Independent and some Libertarian. But that does not matter. All that matters is whether they will sign a contract that they will work to fix these problems.
We should vote for whichever candidate agrees, in writing, to do all of the following:
1) Cut the costs of government by at least 40% over the next 4 years, even if it means cutting programs we like. Give the wealth of the world a little security in bringing the wealth here. And then keep that cost down.
2) Cut the size of government enough to effect the 40% cost cuts.
3) Reduce all taxes - a flat tax for personal taxation, and the lowest tax rate in the world on businesses, to attract them - and the jobs - back to the USA. Set up a national "debt surcharge" tax of 2% on any purchase of any non-essential item (food & medical are exempt), with every penny going to pay off our deficit. The tax is terminated as soon as our debt is paid. This plan would instill greater confidence in America's future, which would attract the wealth, businesses and jobs.
4) Restore our freedoms. Americans should be free to do whatever they choose provided it harms no one else, and does not preclude anyone else from doing the same. The government, as Reagan so aptly put it, should "get out of the way."
5) Our immigration policy should change radically. No amnesty - anyone here illegally would not be eligible - go home and do it the right way. But make the right way a GOOD way, as follows:
a) Anyone can come here, provided they submit to and pass a background check and pass a medical exam and get necessary shots
b) Anyone who comes must be taught - and must learn - English before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply
c) Anyone who comes here must learn our history and our culture before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply
d) Once the immigrant follows through on the above, he or she may apply for legal citizenship. If they do not comply within 5 years, they are then deported and may not try again for 2 years.
The main difference between this and the current system is that the current system limits the number of new immigrants. That makes it almost impossible for immigrants to come legally, forcing them to come illegally so we have no controls over whether they are criminals, terrorists or carriers of disease.
Any politician who agrees to do these things should win our votes overwhelmingly. Those who do not should be told, overwhelmingly, to hit the road.
I would like to hear your comments and suggestions - click the COMMENT link below. Please, keep it clean, and withour personal attacks or partisan BS. Constructive, well-thought-out comments welcome.
/
First, what is wrong? I'll punch up the things I believe are in serious disrepair, and why:
1) Our nation owes too much money - the wealth of the world is attracted to the safest, strongest most stable places. We grew strong because that USED to be America. If you had money to invest, is that not what you would do? By owing so much money, we show the world that their wealth would not be safe here, and they will look elsewhere. China is getting the money. Even ours.
2) The ONLY reason we owe so much is the cost of government. The only way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce its size.
3) Wealth goes where it is welcome, and treated well. Countries with the lowest taxes are the countries that atttract business, jobs and wealth. Currently, our tax structure is very unfriendly for businesses and investors. And the reason our taxes are so high is the cost and size of government, above
4) Loss of freedom. Government can only grow when we give it the power. To give power to the government, we must give it up for ourselves. You cannot give it, and still keep it. When government grows, we lose freedoms, as well as our wealth. When freedom is lost, we lose incentive to work, incentive to innovate. We lose some of the lust for life. We also tend to anger more quickly and easily.
5) Illegal immigration is tearing us apart, causing major divisions in our nation
I believe those are the major problems that, if not fixed, will destroy America. And the only people who can fix it is - US. We control these things at the voting booth.
I will not advocate voting for any party - party voting is what got us into this mess. Instead, every American citizen has an obligation to vote for whichever candidate promises to actively work to fix our problems and leave partisan politics at the door. Some may be Republican, some Democrat, some Independent and some Libertarian. But that does not matter. All that matters is whether they will sign a contract that they will work to fix these problems.
We should vote for whichever candidate agrees, in writing, to do all of the following:
1) Cut the costs of government by at least 40% over the next 4 years, even if it means cutting programs we like. Give the wealth of the world a little security in bringing the wealth here. And then keep that cost down.
2) Cut the size of government enough to effect the 40% cost cuts.
3) Reduce all taxes - a flat tax for personal taxation, and the lowest tax rate in the world on businesses, to attract them - and the jobs - back to the USA. Set up a national "debt surcharge" tax of 2% on any purchase of any non-essential item (food & medical are exempt), with every penny going to pay off our deficit. The tax is terminated as soon as our debt is paid. This plan would instill greater confidence in America's future, which would attract the wealth, businesses and jobs.
4) Restore our freedoms. Americans should be free to do whatever they choose provided it harms no one else, and does not preclude anyone else from doing the same. The government, as Reagan so aptly put it, should "get out of the way."
5) Our immigration policy should change radically. No amnesty - anyone here illegally would not be eligible - go home and do it the right way. But make the right way a GOOD way, as follows:
a) Anyone can come here, provided they submit to and pass a background check and pass a medical exam and get necessary shots
b) Anyone who comes must be taught - and must learn - English before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply
c) Anyone who comes here must learn our history and our culture before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply
d) Once the immigrant follows through on the above, he or she may apply for legal citizenship. If they do not comply within 5 years, they are then deported and may not try again for 2 years.
The main difference between this and the current system is that the current system limits the number of new immigrants. That makes it almost impossible for immigrants to come legally, forcing them to come illegally so we have no controls over whether they are criminals, terrorists or carriers of disease.
Any politician who agrees to do these things should win our votes overwhelmingly. Those who do not should be told, overwhelmingly, to hit the road.
I would like to hear your comments and suggestions - click the COMMENT link below. Please, keep it clean, and withour personal attacks or partisan BS. Constructive, well-thought-out comments welcome.
/
Facts About the Supremacy Clause
Some people not really familiar with either the Constitution OR the law (though they may be lawyers) are attempting to say that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution allows any and all federal laws (like the health care law just passed) to always trump state law.
Nothing could be further from the truth - again, liberals are trying to spin the Constitution, hoping you will not know any better.
Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"
The key point in the clause that liberals conveniently overlook is the part that says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..". In short, this clause states that laws passed by Congress are Supreme ONLY IF THEY ARE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BEGIN WITH. In other words, if the law is Constitutional to begin with. If Congress passes a law that is not Constitutional, then it is not the supreme law of the land. In fact, it is unenforceable and illegal. Period.
The health care law is unconstitutional in (4) respects. Therefore, it is not supreme and does not trump state law.
First, the so-called "commerce clause" only pertains to international or interstate commerce. If a citizen chooses NOT to engage in commerce, then he obviously does not fall under the scope of the commerce clause. Nor do the Powers of Congress (Article 1 section 8) give Congress the power to FORCE any citizen into commerce just so they can then regulate his actions. That is entrapment.
It is also unconstitutional for Congress to pass any unfunded mandates to the states. The health care bill only pays the higher Medicare costs for two years. After that, the states are forced to do so. That is an unfunded mandate.
And under the 5th Amendment, Congress may not take personal or private property without fair and just compensation. Forcing a citizen to buy a product he neither wants nor needs deprives the citizen of some of his personal assets, without fair and just compensation being given. The insurance cannot qualify as just compensation because there can be no assumption that it will ever be used.
There are other Constitutional violations, as well. But the major, blatant one is that Congress has no authority under ANY part of the Constitution to force its citizens to buy a product.
/
Nothing could be further from the truth - again, liberals are trying to spin the Constitution, hoping you will not know any better.
Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"
The key point in the clause that liberals conveniently overlook is the part that says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..". In short, this clause states that laws passed by Congress are Supreme ONLY IF THEY ARE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BEGIN WITH. In other words, if the law is Constitutional to begin with. If Congress passes a law that is not Constitutional, then it is not the supreme law of the land. In fact, it is unenforceable and illegal. Period.
The health care law is unconstitutional in (4) respects. Therefore, it is not supreme and does not trump state law.
First, the so-called "commerce clause" only pertains to international or interstate commerce. If a citizen chooses NOT to engage in commerce, then he obviously does not fall under the scope of the commerce clause. Nor do the Powers of Congress (Article 1 section 8) give Congress the power to FORCE any citizen into commerce just so they can then regulate his actions. That is entrapment.
It is also unconstitutional for Congress to pass any unfunded mandates to the states. The health care bill only pays the higher Medicare costs for two years. After that, the states are forced to do so. That is an unfunded mandate.
And under the 5th Amendment, Congress may not take personal or private property without fair and just compensation. Forcing a citizen to buy a product he neither wants nor needs deprives the citizen of some of his personal assets, without fair and just compensation being given. The insurance cannot qualify as just compensation because there can be no assumption that it will ever be used.
There are other Constitutional violations, as well. But the major, blatant one is that Congress has no authority under ANY part of the Constitution to force its citizens to buy a product.
/
Almost Comical
Well if this doesn't take the cake. For over a year the Democrats were saying that the health care bill was the greatest thing ever, and were taking credit for it. Today is a different story. As America roils and boils over their arrogance, it appears they have decided to start blaming the Republicans for the unpopular parts of the bill. In the lamestream news today, one of the headlines reads that the mandate to force every American to buy insurance was actually an idea by the GOP.
Whatsamattta, Pelosi, Reid and Obama - don't you want to take "credit" for your illegitimate offspring?
Here is the real story. Back in 1991 some moron wrote a paper stating that it might be an idea to mandate all Americans be insured. He passed that on to George Herbert Walker Bush, who liked the idea provided it was accompanied by a tax credit to pay for it (note: the Democrat version just passed does not include such a credit).
Bear in mind - George H.W. Bush is NOT the GOP. He may be a Republican, but like his son he is a progressive Republican - another name for Democrat Lite, or RiNO (Republican in Name Only). And one person does not constitute the GOP - the GOP rejected it outright.
Then the lamestream media points to Mitt Romney, who passed the same thing in Massachusetts with the support of Scott Brown, and they again pin it on the GOP. WRONG! The GOP was against it. And Romney and Brown are not the GOP - they are Massachusetts Republicans, which means they are progressives - Democrat Lite. True conservative Republicans cannot get elected in Massachusetts or Maine.
The point is, if Romney and Brown had been true conservative Republicans, they would never have been elected to any office at all, and Massachusetts would not be going broke trying to enforce their universal health care.
And in no case, ever, did the GOP support any mandate for any citizen to buy insurance. Perhaps some RiNO's like the idea, but then again, there were 16,440 Americans arrested in 1941 for belonging to Hitler's 5th Column here in America. That did not mean they were "average Americans". There are a few nuts in any group.
I suggest to the Democrats who are now so ashamed of this bill that they are now trying to blame it on Republicans that they buck up and face the consequences of their arrogance and stupidity, because the American people, though they can sometimes be fooled, are not fools.
/
Whatsamattta, Pelosi, Reid and Obama - don't you want to take "credit" for your illegitimate offspring?
Here is the real story. Back in 1991 some moron wrote a paper stating that it might be an idea to mandate all Americans be insured. He passed that on to George Herbert Walker Bush, who liked the idea provided it was accompanied by a tax credit to pay for it (note: the Democrat version just passed does not include such a credit).
Bear in mind - George H.W. Bush is NOT the GOP. He may be a Republican, but like his son he is a progressive Republican - another name for Democrat Lite, or RiNO (Republican in Name Only). And one person does not constitute the GOP - the GOP rejected it outright.
Then the lamestream media points to Mitt Romney, who passed the same thing in Massachusetts with the support of Scott Brown, and they again pin it on the GOP. WRONG! The GOP was against it. And Romney and Brown are not the GOP - they are Massachusetts Republicans, which means they are progressives - Democrat Lite. True conservative Republicans cannot get elected in Massachusetts or Maine.
The point is, if Romney and Brown had been true conservative Republicans, they would never have been elected to any office at all, and Massachusetts would not be going broke trying to enforce their universal health care.
And in no case, ever, did the GOP support any mandate for any citizen to buy insurance. Perhaps some RiNO's like the idea, but then again, there were 16,440 Americans arrested in 1941 for belonging to Hitler's 5th Column here in America. That did not mean they were "average Americans". There are a few nuts in any group.
I suggest to the Democrats who are now so ashamed of this bill that they are now trying to blame it on Republicans that they buck up and face the consequences of their arrogance and stupidity, because the American people, though they can sometimes be fooled, are not fools.
/
Digging the Truth Out of the Health Care Law
For a year the Democrats pushing the health care bill have been spouting two pages of "talking points" that were designed to get fools to support the bill. Talking points like "It will cover pre-existing conditions" and "it will reduce the deficit". Two pages of benefits out of a 2,733 page bill.
This should not be a party issue. It should be about what is best for the country. And while there are a few good things about this law, the law in general breaks bad for the country. It is the right idea with the wrong approach. It's like finding yourself in the right pew, but in the wrong church. It was designed by partisans, for partisans. It should have been designed by Americans, for Americans. It was not.
First, however, I will address those who claim that there are some nice goodies in the law. I do not dispute that. But I would make two important points:
1) Goodies are NOT FREE. They cost money. And ALL the money the government spends comes from taxpayers (you)
2) You can cover a poison pill with ice cream, cherries and chocolate sauce, but it will still kill you
Now that the health care bill has become law, we can now see what is in the other 2,731 pages, and you are not going to like it! This new law will do ALL of the following, guaranteed!
1) Raise health care costs
2) Raise insurance premiums
3) Cost America a million jobs
4) Reduce R&D for new medical technology, thereby reducing quality of care
5) Reduce access to care
For over a year Republicans tried to warn us that such things were in the bill, and for a year the Democrats in Congress - and Obama himself - kept saying, "No, those things are not in the bill." And now that it is law and we can see for ourselves, we discover the Republicans were right - they ARE in this law, and the Democrats have been intentionally lying to us for over a year.
Here are just a few of the dirty little secrets the Democrats in Congress - and Obama - intentionally kept from you. Bear in mind, this is not a complete list of the devastation to be wreaked upon you - this is just the first few that have been found. And this is why the bill was crafted behind closed doors, and not made available until 3 days before being voted on. How many people can read - and understand - 2,733 pages of legaleze and political gobbledegook in three days? I'm pretty smart and well educated, and I was not able to do it in 3 days.
Let's start with the Democrats strongest selling point - children with pre-existing conditions will be covered beginning immediately. Well, that is not true. According to the actual bill, there is a clause that specifically states that benefit does not begin until 2014. I believe Congress now plans on passing a law that changes that (because they got caught in their lie), but the point is that their biggest selling point was a lie, and they knew it.
The law includes the CLASS Act, which states the government, beginning in January 2012 will begin an AUTOMATIC deduction from every paycheck, forever. That deduction from your income is expected to be between $149-$240 per month. Bear in mind, this is in addition to the money you will be forced to pay for insurance.
The law requires every medical record be made electronic, and in 2014 will be posted ONLINE, where virtually anyone will be able to access it (though perhaps only by hacking, or by getting the info from the hundreds of thousands who will have legal access). If you or your child has any embarrassing or detrimental condition, prospective employers can use that info to deny a job. Insurance companies will increase your premiums. Your medical records can come back to haunt you in many aspects of your life. Bear in mind - those records will include your DNA, so the government will be able to track all generations of your family, forever. And since no government lasts forever, whose hands would that information end up in?
Companies across America, having now read the bill, have discovered the law will rob them of millions of dollars in extra taxes. Caterpillar will lose $100 million the first year alone. AT&T a billion. 3M will lose 90 million. Now I ask you - what do companies do when they lose large amounts of money? They do one or more of the following:
1) Send jobs overseas so they can compete
2) Move their entire operation overseas
3) Increase the cost of their products - the prices YOU pay will go up
4) Lay off workers
5) Reduce R&D for new and better products you will now never get
When the losses nationwide are combined, it is estimated to cost businesses - and therefore the people - over a trillion dollars.
The clause that brings on these losses is the one that says companies who provide RETIREES with health benefits will no longer be able to deduct that expense on their taxes. So, the choice is to either drop all the retirees (not a good option), or find ways (see above) to offset the added expenses.
There is a new, high tax being applied to companies that manufacture the medical devices we need. Naturally, in the very least that will result in higher prices for medical devices. How does this REDUCE medical costs? One company, the maker of defibrilators, operating and employing people in Massachussets is a company named ZOLL. Last year its profits were about $9 million. The health care bill just passed will tax them 7.5 million of that. Guess what? They will either have to jack up costs considerably (higher health care costs), or go out of business (lost jobs) or move overseas (lost jobs). I would like to know how this benefits anyone at all. And if that tax prevents companies from developing new and better products, the health care law will then be responsible for lives lost for want of better devices.
This health care law will pay the states increased costs for medicare for two years. But after that, the states will be on the hook for picking up those additional Medicare costs - many millions of dollars. This will bankrupt many states, already in trouble. States will then be FORCED to increase the taxes for its residents - YOU.
OK, so now you have the privilege of being forced to buy insurance PLUS lose $50 per week to the CLASS act PLUS lose jobs PLUS pay higher costs for care (not to mention that all accountants now indicate insurance premiums will rise 13-17% EXTRA because of this law), but you will also get hit with higher state taxes in a couple of years. I sure hope you folks can afford all that.
Oh, but there is more....
Kids will have to get their student loans from the government, at higher interest rates which will be used to pay for health care. And there is a provision in the law that concerns - and even allows for the government to mandate - preventive care. Under that clause, the government may, at their discretion, begin to force people into a healthy lifestyle. They can eliminate salt from your diet. Tobacco? Gone. Alcohol? Say good-bye to your martinis. Eliminate any foods they think are unhealthy, like soda and chips. Force you to exercise a certain amount each week. While the law does not YET mandate such things, it does open the door by granting the government the right to enforce preventive care.
Well, folks, this is only the beginning. I'm sure we will find a lot more as we peruse through this monstrosity of 2.733 pages. Stay tuned for updates on how badly we have all been screwed.
/
Friday, March 26, 2010
Debunking is in order
Liberals supporting the health care bill keep trying to pull that bogus argument that we are "forced to buy car insurance, forced to buy federal insurance for a CDL, and forced to buy insurance when you get a mortgage - so this is no different."
To those who haven't really thought things through...
1) Car insurance is not required by the government, and even some states like NH do not require it. More important, you only need insurance if you CHOOSE to drive. It is a choice you make, and when you make choices you can expect to pay the required costs. You are not FORCED to carry auto insurance - you can avoid it by using public transit. You cannot avoid buying health insurance. THAT is the difference.
2) A CDL allows you to get into a 10 ton machine and barrel down busy highways at 70 MPH. Any mistake and someone is toast. So, yes - there are requirements you must meet if you are going to have that kind of power over life and death. And, like driving a car, it is a CHOICE you make. Not every American is required to have federal TT insurance - only those who CHOOSE that. THAT is the difference.
3) When you get a mortgage, you do NOT own the property free and clear. The bank has a LOT of money invested in YOUR property, so they have a RIGHT to protect their interest by requiring insurance. Don't want homeowners insurance? Fine - either pay cash, or rent a home. Again, YOUR CHOICE.
And that is the difference. In the case of health care, the government has taken away all choice. Though we are supposed to be free citizens, we no longer are free to make choices for ourselves.
And THAT is the difference.
And I find it puzzling that liberals, all to quick to scream "free choice" when it comes to killing babies, but they have no problem with stifling everyone else's right to free choice.
/
To those who haven't really thought things through...
1) Car insurance is not required by the government, and even some states like NH do not require it. More important, you only need insurance if you CHOOSE to drive. It is a choice you make, and when you make choices you can expect to pay the required costs. You are not FORCED to carry auto insurance - you can avoid it by using public transit. You cannot avoid buying health insurance. THAT is the difference.
2) A CDL allows you to get into a 10 ton machine and barrel down busy highways at 70 MPH. Any mistake and someone is toast. So, yes - there are requirements you must meet if you are going to have that kind of power over life and death. And, like driving a car, it is a CHOICE you make. Not every American is required to have federal TT insurance - only those who CHOOSE that. THAT is the difference.
3) When you get a mortgage, you do NOT own the property free and clear. The bank has a LOT of money invested in YOUR property, so they have a RIGHT to protect their interest by requiring insurance. Don't want homeowners insurance? Fine - either pay cash, or rent a home. Again, YOUR CHOICE.
And that is the difference. In the case of health care, the government has taken away all choice. Though we are supposed to be free citizens, we no longer are free to make choices for ourselves.
And THAT is the difference.
And I find it puzzling that liberals, all to quick to scream "free choice" when it comes to killing babies, but they have no problem with stifling everyone else's right to free choice.
/
Thoughts To Myself - STUFF
PALIN: As much as I like what Sarah Palin stands for, and I generally support her (but would not vote for her to be president - she is not ready), I am sorely disappointed in her endorsement of John McCain in his Senate campaign.
Like Lindsey Graham, John McCain is a progressive, and wants amnesty for 12-20 million illegals. That is contrary to what conservatives believe. So I found it disturbing that the de facto leader of the Tea Party would endorse him. I do understand loyalty, and perhaps she is simply repaying a debt because McCain put Palin onto the national stage. And loyalty is fine - up to the point where it begins to compromise your core values. That is where the line should be drawn.I don't believe Sarah really wants to endorse McCain. I think the McCain camp boxed her into it. But I would have greater respect for her if she were to say "no", and tell McCain that, to repay her debt, she would not actively work AGAINST him.
ANOTHER DIRTY SECRET: Something almost no one knows about - included in the new health care law is a completely new "Social Security" type plan to drive America further into debt AND taking money out of YOUR pocket with every paycheck. Beginning in 2012, your employer must automatically deduct from your paycheck an average of $146-$240 each and every month, for life. Supposedly, this will provide you with $75 a day in long term care when you get old. The figures, however, show that, like Social Security, it will not have the funds necessary to pay out when the time comes. Meanwhile, you will lose at least $1500 every year (subject to increases) out of your paycheck. Didn't know that, didja? Neither did the people who supported this bad bill. Yes, it is possible to opt out, if you learn how, and don't forget about it between now and 2012. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.) I've been watching the lamestream media - they all are calling this "CLASS Act" a "great benefit", and describe how it helps pay long-term care. But not one tells you that YOU will be paying about $50 a week for it for the rest of your lives. They conveniently leave out that little tidbit of information (except FOX News - they actually tell the WHOLE story).
Oh, and didn't they tell you? Beginning in 2014, the health care bill REQUIRES you to have electronic medical records - and they will be posted online, where any doctor or hospital can access it. We all know how insecure that information online can be. And any medical person, even if not your own doctor, will have access to your medical records. And that means that every person on Earth can get that information about you and every member of your family. The information can now, by law, be used and shared without your permission. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.)
[Some of you will refuse to believe these things are in the bill, but they definitely are. And as time passes, I suspect we will find a lot more. The Congress spent a year repeating two measly pages of talking points describing what is in a 2700 page bill, all the while telling us the other 2,698 pages are nothing - don't worry about them. Now we start to discover what is in those other pages - and why they kept them secret]
ARMS CONTROL: Obama and his liberal friends believe there is strength in weakness. They actually believe that if you get rid of your defenses, the bad guys will leave you alone. But any school kid knows better - the weak are the ones the bullies pick on most. That's because it is natural and instinctive for the strong to prey upon the weak. The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest."
When a wolf follows a herd, which member of the herd does he target? The weakest. This is how a species is made and kept strong - predators remove the weak. That is how it should be. And always will be.
Obama and the liberals should learn one fact of life - you either eat or get eaten. Nothing - and I literally mean nothing - can live without consuming something else. Nothing lives but what something else must first die. And there is no way around it.
When Obama says, as he did, that he wants to be free of nuclear weapons, and that it will make for a safer world, he is being foolish and ignorant. Reducing our arms makes us weaker. Period. And the very minute that an enemy believes us to be significantly weaker than they are, that is when they will go to war with us. The predator preying on the weak.
In 1941, Americans were complacent. The Japanese mistook that complacency for weakness and attacked us - they thought they were stronger, and we were seen as weak. The mistake they made was that we were asleep, not weak. And they awoke an angry and strong nation.
But in the case of arms control, Obama and the liberals are actually making America weaker. It matters not if Russia agrees to do the same, for two reasons: the Russians cannot be trusted to do their part, and there are nuclear countries that are NOT going to sign on. North Korea and Iran will continue building nuclear arsenals. By reducing our defenses, we strengthen the enemy without them having to lift a finger.
Here's the short take - liberals actually believe the parable about the lion and the mouse. But in the real world, even if the mouse pulls the thorn from the lion's paw, the lion will still EAT THE MOUSE.
HEALTH CARE: It is a fact that Hugo Chavez is a socialist, and he makes no bones about it. And it is a fact that Fidel Castro is another form of socialist - a communist. And BOTH of those individuals are praising America's new health care plan as the best piece of socialist legislation they have seen since they took over their own nations. Yet, liberals here in America do not see it as socialism. I guess that's because we never see ourselves as others see us. But if it flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...
FORECLOSURES: Natural laws prove that hardships and failures makes us stronger, which is a good thing. Yet, once again, liberals in congress plan on protecting fools from having to pay the price for their foolishness. Banks and Congress will be giving major, costly breaks to homeowners who bought more home than they could afford. Being deemed "too small to fail", the Obama administration is now bailing out more irresponsible people, rather than allow them to take responsibility for their choices. So, those people will not get stronger. They will get weaker. The trouble is, a nation is only as strong as its people, and our people are being made weak by bleeding-heart liberals who mistakenly believe that pain and hardship are bad things. They are not. They are the fire that tempers the steel.
LEGALIZING DRUGS: As a Libertarian primarily, I believe every person should be free to live as they please, as long as it harms no one else or precludes anyone else from doing the same. On the other hand, I believe drugs are bad - very bad - and need to be regulated. So I have a suggestion: legalize, but regulate, and make it expensive. A person who wants to waste their life stoned should have the same right as the guy who wants to spend his life drunk. But like the drunk, if the stoner causes harm, he is punished. Also, make them responsible for their choices - since substance abuse is a choice a person makes, they should not have any right to use the tax dollars of others to support their habit, nor pay for any damages incurred.
In other words, if you choose to abuse substances like alcohol and drugs, you will not be eligible for free or subsidized health care - you cannot destroy your body by your own choice and expect everyone else to pay for repairing it. If you work at killing yourself, don't expect me to give you CPR when you succeed.
Further, drug users should not be eligible for any kind of welfare, and anyone found "under the influence" while driving or engaging in any other dangerous activity would be subject to jail time.
What it boils down to: each of us should be able to make our own choices, but we should also be held responsible for whatever choices we make. If you want to dance, you gotta pay the band.
GAY MARRIAGE: Marriage was originally a religious rite. It came to be, wrongly, a state's right.
Much anger exists over this issue - an issue that need not be an issue at all, if states had not breached the wall of separation between church and state, and stayed out of the marriage business. So here's an easy fix: states remove themselves from the marriage business and put it back into the hands of the church. States would then instutute Civil Unions. Any couple - regardless of sexual orientation - would enter a Civil Union if they want to receive the legal rights and benefits usually (and previously) associated with marriage. For religious people who ALSO want to be joined in the eyes of their chosen God, they would petition their church to be MARRIED. This would be in addition to the Civil (legal) Union. Marriage would incur no special benefits or privileges from the state or government - it is a union in the eyes of the church, only.
In this way, any couple can enter into a legal union and enjoy the benefits derived from it. And those who are religious and want God's blessing may enter into the separate union, marriage, by church decree.
Could gays still "marry"? First, there would be no need, as they have the same rights as heterosexuals - they may enter a Civil Union, and they may petition their church for a God-sanctioned marriage. The church would reserve the right to authorize or decline the request for marriage - even among heterosexuals. If a specific church wants to recognize a union of marriage among gay couples, that is the choice for that church. Since "marriage" would have no legal status, being denied marriage would be a personal issue between the couple and the church, and not a matter for the states nor the courts. Separation of church and state. No different from saying, "Yeah, you can come and visit in my house, " or "No, you are not welcome in my house." And everyone gets what they want.
/
Like Lindsey Graham, John McCain is a progressive, and wants amnesty for 12-20 million illegals. That is contrary to what conservatives believe. So I found it disturbing that the de facto leader of the Tea Party would endorse him. I do understand loyalty, and perhaps she is simply repaying a debt because McCain put Palin onto the national stage. And loyalty is fine - up to the point where it begins to compromise your core values. That is where the line should be drawn.I don't believe Sarah really wants to endorse McCain. I think the McCain camp boxed her into it. But I would have greater respect for her if she were to say "no", and tell McCain that, to repay her debt, she would not actively work AGAINST him.
ANOTHER DIRTY SECRET: Something almost no one knows about - included in the new health care law is a completely new "Social Security" type plan to drive America further into debt AND taking money out of YOUR pocket with every paycheck. Beginning in 2012, your employer must automatically deduct from your paycheck an average of $146-$240 each and every month, for life. Supposedly, this will provide you with $75 a day in long term care when you get old. The figures, however, show that, like Social Security, it will not have the funds necessary to pay out when the time comes. Meanwhile, you will lose at least $1500 every year (subject to increases) out of your paycheck. Didn't know that, didja? Neither did the people who supported this bad bill. Yes, it is possible to opt out, if you learn how, and don't forget about it between now and 2012. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.) I've been watching the lamestream media - they all are calling this "CLASS Act" a "great benefit", and describe how it helps pay long-term care. But not one tells you that YOU will be paying about $50 a week for it for the rest of your lives. They conveniently leave out that little tidbit of information (except FOX News - they actually tell the WHOLE story).
Oh, and didn't they tell you? Beginning in 2014, the health care bill REQUIRES you to have electronic medical records - and they will be posted online, where any doctor or hospital can access it. We all know how insecure that information online can be. And any medical person, even if not your own doctor, will have access to your medical records. And that means that every person on Earth can get that information about you and every member of your family. The information can now, by law, be used and shared without your permission. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.)
[Some of you will refuse to believe these things are in the bill, but they definitely are. And as time passes, I suspect we will find a lot more. The Congress spent a year repeating two measly pages of talking points describing what is in a 2700 page bill, all the while telling us the other 2,698 pages are nothing - don't worry about them. Now we start to discover what is in those other pages - and why they kept them secret]
ARMS CONTROL: Obama and his liberal friends believe there is strength in weakness. They actually believe that if you get rid of your defenses, the bad guys will leave you alone. But any school kid knows better - the weak are the ones the bullies pick on most. That's because it is natural and instinctive for the strong to prey upon the weak. The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest."
When a wolf follows a herd, which member of the herd does he target? The weakest. This is how a species is made and kept strong - predators remove the weak. That is how it should be. And always will be.
Obama and the liberals should learn one fact of life - you either eat or get eaten. Nothing - and I literally mean nothing - can live without consuming something else. Nothing lives but what something else must first die. And there is no way around it.
When Obama says, as he did, that he wants to be free of nuclear weapons, and that it will make for a safer world, he is being foolish and ignorant. Reducing our arms makes us weaker. Period. And the very minute that an enemy believes us to be significantly weaker than they are, that is when they will go to war with us. The predator preying on the weak.
In 1941, Americans were complacent. The Japanese mistook that complacency for weakness and attacked us - they thought they were stronger, and we were seen as weak. The mistake they made was that we were asleep, not weak. And they awoke an angry and strong nation.
But in the case of arms control, Obama and the liberals are actually making America weaker. It matters not if Russia agrees to do the same, for two reasons: the Russians cannot be trusted to do their part, and there are nuclear countries that are NOT going to sign on. North Korea and Iran will continue building nuclear arsenals. By reducing our defenses, we strengthen the enemy without them having to lift a finger.
Here's the short take - liberals actually believe the parable about the lion and the mouse. But in the real world, even if the mouse pulls the thorn from the lion's paw, the lion will still EAT THE MOUSE.
HEALTH CARE: It is a fact that Hugo Chavez is a socialist, and he makes no bones about it. And it is a fact that Fidel Castro is another form of socialist - a communist. And BOTH of those individuals are praising America's new health care plan as the best piece of socialist legislation they have seen since they took over their own nations. Yet, liberals here in America do not see it as socialism. I guess that's because we never see ourselves as others see us. But if it flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...
FORECLOSURES: Natural laws prove that hardships and failures makes us stronger, which is a good thing. Yet, once again, liberals in congress plan on protecting fools from having to pay the price for their foolishness. Banks and Congress will be giving major, costly breaks to homeowners who bought more home than they could afford. Being deemed "too small to fail", the Obama administration is now bailing out more irresponsible people, rather than allow them to take responsibility for their choices. So, those people will not get stronger. They will get weaker. The trouble is, a nation is only as strong as its people, and our people are being made weak by bleeding-heart liberals who mistakenly believe that pain and hardship are bad things. They are not. They are the fire that tempers the steel.
LEGALIZING DRUGS: As a Libertarian primarily, I believe every person should be free to live as they please, as long as it harms no one else or precludes anyone else from doing the same. On the other hand, I believe drugs are bad - very bad - and need to be regulated. So I have a suggestion: legalize, but regulate, and make it expensive. A person who wants to waste their life stoned should have the same right as the guy who wants to spend his life drunk. But like the drunk, if the stoner causes harm, he is punished. Also, make them responsible for their choices - since substance abuse is a choice a person makes, they should not have any right to use the tax dollars of others to support their habit, nor pay for any damages incurred.
In other words, if you choose to abuse substances like alcohol and drugs, you will not be eligible for free or subsidized health care - you cannot destroy your body by your own choice and expect everyone else to pay for repairing it. If you work at killing yourself, don't expect me to give you CPR when you succeed.
Further, drug users should not be eligible for any kind of welfare, and anyone found "under the influence" while driving or engaging in any other dangerous activity would be subject to jail time.
What it boils down to: each of us should be able to make our own choices, but we should also be held responsible for whatever choices we make. If you want to dance, you gotta pay the band.
GAY MARRIAGE: Marriage was originally a religious rite. It came to be, wrongly, a state's right.
Much anger exists over this issue - an issue that need not be an issue at all, if states had not breached the wall of separation between church and state, and stayed out of the marriage business. So here's an easy fix: states remove themselves from the marriage business and put it back into the hands of the church. States would then instutute Civil Unions. Any couple - regardless of sexual orientation - would enter a Civil Union if they want to receive the legal rights and benefits usually (and previously) associated with marriage. For religious people who ALSO want to be joined in the eyes of their chosen God, they would petition their church to be MARRIED. This would be in addition to the Civil (legal) Union. Marriage would incur no special benefits or privileges from the state or government - it is a union in the eyes of the church, only.
In this way, any couple can enter into a legal union and enjoy the benefits derived from it. And those who are religious and want God's blessing may enter into the separate union, marriage, by church decree.
Could gays still "marry"? First, there would be no need, as they have the same rights as heterosexuals - they may enter a Civil Union, and they may petition their church for a God-sanctioned marriage. The church would reserve the right to authorize or decline the request for marriage - even among heterosexuals. If a specific church wants to recognize a union of marriage among gay couples, that is the choice for that church. Since "marriage" would have no legal status, being denied marriage would be a personal issue between the couple and the church, and not a matter for the states nor the courts. Separation of church and state. No different from saying, "Yeah, you can come and visit in my house, " or "No, you are not welcome in my house." And everyone gets what they want.
/
Thursday, March 25, 2010
T 'N T
No, not dynamite.
Trials & Tribulations. You are familiar with all the phrases like, "Anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "Adversity builds strength." Well, they are true. It is the trials and tribulations, the hardships of life that make us, as individuals and a specie, strong enough to survive. Even in today's "civilized" world, the first law of nature is still "Survival of the fittest."
So, it is not only natural, but necessary for us to endure hardships. The more the better. It is how we learn, grow, get stronger and survive.
So why is it that progressive liberals work so hard to get us to believe otherwise? Why do they go to such great lengths to remove hardships from the lives of people? The liberals in government keep pushing bailouts and entitlements, as if to say, "We will protect you from failure. We will cover your losses. We will support you if necessary."
They do it because liberals do not LIKE nature. They do not LIKE hardships. They do not LIKE strong people, because they feel threatened by the strong. And because it is difficult for them to control the strong. It is much simpler controlling the weak, so their priority is to create as many weak, dependent wusses as they possibly can. Then, provide welfare for their support, so they will not bite the hand that feeds them. The weak will vote for those who feed them.
In many, if not all cases, the progressive liberals are, themselves, weak. They could never survive if civilization were to crumble. There isn't a John Wayne or Charleton Heston type among them. In the natural world of "eat or be eaten", liberals would be known as "prey". And that is their motivation - in order to survive, they must weaken the strong. Instead of becoming strong themselves, they prefer to weaken the strong.
That is precisely why Europe tries so hard to bring us down, particularly in the United Nations. America is the power, and that frightens them. To be less frightened, they need to knock us down a few pegs. France, Germany, Russia and China actively tried that before and during the beginning of the Iraq war.
Trials and Tribulations. As humans, we need them. And the last thing we need is someone who makes it their life's work to make us weak by removing the hardships we endure. We must sometimes fail. We must sometimes get hurt. And yes, some must die. For those liberals who do not like to accept such things, it is called "LIFE".
/
Trials & Tribulations. You are familiar with all the phrases like, "Anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "Adversity builds strength." Well, they are true. It is the trials and tribulations, the hardships of life that make us, as individuals and a specie, strong enough to survive. Even in today's "civilized" world, the first law of nature is still "Survival of the fittest."
So, it is not only natural, but necessary for us to endure hardships. The more the better. It is how we learn, grow, get stronger and survive.
So why is it that progressive liberals work so hard to get us to believe otherwise? Why do they go to such great lengths to remove hardships from the lives of people? The liberals in government keep pushing bailouts and entitlements, as if to say, "We will protect you from failure. We will cover your losses. We will support you if necessary."
They do it because liberals do not LIKE nature. They do not LIKE hardships. They do not LIKE strong people, because they feel threatened by the strong. And because it is difficult for them to control the strong. It is much simpler controlling the weak, so their priority is to create as many weak, dependent wusses as they possibly can. Then, provide welfare for their support, so they will not bite the hand that feeds them. The weak will vote for those who feed them.
In many, if not all cases, the progressive liberals are, themselves, weak. They could never survive if civilization were to crumble. There isn't a John Wayne or Charleton Heston type among them. In the natural world of "eat or be eaten", liberals would be known as "prey". And that is their motivation - in order to survive, they must weaken the strong. Instead of becoming strong themselves, they prefer to weaken the strong.
That is precisely why Europe tries so hard to bring us down, particularly in the United Nations. America is the power, and that frightens them. To be less frightened, they need to knock us down a few pegs. France, Germany, Russia and China actively tried that before and during the beginning of the Iraq war.
Trials and Tribulations. As humans, we need them. And the last thing we need is someone who makes it their life's work to make us weak by removing the hardships we endure. We must sometimes fail. We must sometimes get hurt. And yes, some must die. For those liberals who do not like to accept such things, it is called "LIFE".
/
Who Can Serve Two Masters?
For those of you familiar with the Bible, it states clearly that "no man can serve two masters." But the new health care law forces care-givers to try and do just that. On the one hand, they are supposed to be serving you, the patient, and working in your best inteest. But the health care bill, now law, places the government in the mix to a great extent, particularly with Medicare and Medicaid. They place many regulations, restrictions and red tape on the care-givers, which puts them in the position of serving two masters.
And because of that, neither will be served well.
This is why a poll, run by and published by the New England Journal of Medicine indictates as many as 46.3% of all doctors may either quit the profession, or retire early. And with 32,000,000 more people covered, how will any of us get care - there are not enough doctors as it is?
Now, the Mayo Clinic in Arizona is refusing Medicare patients because it is a "loss leader" they cannot afford. And Walgreens in Washington State no longer accepts Medicare - same reason.
So, what's next? Will our Congress, in their arrogance, pass more unconstitutional laws FORCING doctors, hospitals and pharmacies to accept Medicare? Will America really become a tyrannical state like the USSR was?
If the liberals have their way, yes.
/
And because of that, neither will be served well.
This is why a poll, run by and published by the New England Journal of Medicine indictates as many as 46.3% of all doctors may either quit the profession, or retire early. And with 32,000,000 more people covered, how will any of us get care - there are not enough doctors as it is?
Now, the Mayo Clinic in Arizona is refusing Medicare patients because it is a "loss leader" they cannot afford. And Walgreens in Washington State no longer accepts Medicare - same reason.
So, what's next? Will our Congress, in their arrogance, pass more unconstitutional laws FORCING doctors, hospitals and pharmacies to accept Medicare? Will America really become a tyrannical state like the USSR was?
If the liberals have their way, yes.
/
Pindarovia, Land of Poison Drinkers
The people of the kingdom of Pindarovia were strong and independent. So much so that the tryannical king needed to find a way to weaken them enough so he could keep them under his complete control. He knew the best way to do that would be to first weaken them, then make them dependent upon him for their very lives.
The king went to his wizard to find a way to accomplish the task. The wizard gave the king a potion that, when ingested, would weaken even the strongest of men.
The king, being a wiley man, knew his people would not willingly drink of the foul potion. So he had his cooks make a recipe to make the potion appealing. They added sugar, blueberries and served it up with ice cream on the side.
When one wise man stood and tried to warn the people that this would be bad for them, the king merely said, "Why would you want to keep the people from having blueberries? Why would you want to deprive them of ice cream? How can you be so cruel and wrong-headed?"
And the people, wanting the ice cream and blueberries, were fooled into taking the potion. And they were weakened, and became dependent upon the king for their survival.
Now, you might think this is only a cute little story. But it is much more than that. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Remember all those people who drank the poison believing it to be Kool-Aid at Jonestown?
And now this health care bill. The liberals added a few good things, like covering children with pre-existing conditions, and used those things to "sweeten" the poison that is in the bill. And when a conservative steps up and says this is a bad bill, the liberals say, "Why would you be against covering kids with pre-existing conditions? What kind of monster are you?"
The truth is, conservatives are not against the blueberries or the ice cream. They are against the poison that is being delivered with it.
And when liberals try to accuse conservatives of not caring about the people, they are blatantly lying. They know that is not true, but they use that to con the people into thinking that conservatives are bad.
So here is the difference - liberals give you blueberries and ice cream to get you to eat the poison. Conservatives want you to have the blueberries and ice cream, but without the poison.
And the sooner people stop being fooled by the wiley king and begin listening to the truth, the better off we will all be.
/
The king went to his wizard to find a way to accomplish the task. The wizard gave the king a potion that, when ingested, would weaken even the strongest of men.
The king, being a wiley man, knew his people would not willingly drink of the foul potion. So he had his cooks make a recipe to make the potion appealing. They added sugar, blueberries and served it up with ice cream on the side.
When one wise man stood and tried to warn the people that this would be bad for them, the king merely said, "Why would you want to keep the people from having blueberries? Why would you want to deprive them of ice cream? How can you be so cruel and wrong-headed?"
And the people, wanting the ice cream and blueberries, were fooled into taking the potion. And they were weakened, and became dependent upon the king for their survival.
Now, you might think this is only a cute little story. But it is much more than that. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Remember all those people who drank the poison believing it to be Kool-Aid at Jonestown?
And now this health care bill. The liberals added a few good things, like covering children with pre-existing conditions, and used those things to "sweeten" the poison that is in the bill. And when a conservative steps up and says this is a bad bill, the liberals say, "Why would you be against covering kids with pre-existing conditions? What kind of monster are you?"
The truth is, conservatives are not against the blueberries or the ice cream. They are against the poison that is being delivered with it.
And when liberals try to accuse conservatives of not caring about the people, they are blatantly lying. They know that is not true, but they use that to con the people into thinking that conservatives are bad.
So here is the difference - liberals give you blueberries and ice cream to get you to eat the poison. Conservatives want you to have the blueberries and ice cream, but without the poison.
And the sooner people stop being fooled by the wiley king and begin listening to the truth, the better off we will all be.
/
Success and Freedom
I have often stated that success is dependent upon freedom to a great extent. And nothing could be more true.
In today's America, freedoms are being assailed and trampled, and the biggest offenders are the courts and politicians. Activist judges and corrupt politicians take it upon themselves to do something they have no right to do - "interpret" the Constitution in such ways as to actually change the meaning and intent.
The Founding Fathers did not just throw the Constitution together over a few quaffs of ale at the local tavern. They knew that the strength of the nation would depend upon every citizen to fully understand their rights and responsibilities, so they made it a point to say what they meant, precisely and with deep thought. They wrote it so that it could be taught to, and understood by every school-age child in America. They wrote it so that "interpretation" was neither necessary nor allowed.
So, why would judges believe it needs to be "interpreted"? They don't. Instead, they intentionally use interpretations to push their own personal activist agendas. And that is so very un-American and unconstitutional.
The Constitution even deals with this issue by stating that its content and meaning cannot be changed except by a lawfully executed amendment - and the amendment process is intentionally long and arduous.
But our judges, and even our politicians have been making loads of changes to the Constitution by the method of "interpretation" instead of the amendment process. By circumventing the Constitution and its intent, they are robbing all of us of our freedoms.
So what is the answer? A Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits any judges or elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution from making any interpretations, and from passing laws based on interpretations, and that the Constitution is to be taken as it was written - literally. And in the event that the people should choose to interpret it differently, the interpretation can only be effected by an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, if the people choose that health care, welfare or gay marriage should be basic human rights, they may make that the law only by passing an amendment to the Constitution to that effect. Until then, the Constitution may only be followed to the letter, as written.
Such an amendment would serve to protect everyone from activist judges and corrupt politicians on both sides, and would go a long way toward restoring our freedoms. And restoring freedoms is good for the nation, the economy and the people.
/
In today's America, freedoms are being assailed and trampled, and the biggest offenders are the courts and politicians. Activist judges and corrupt politicians take it upon themselves to do something they have no right to do - "interpret" the Constitution in such ways as to actually change the meaning and intent.
The Founding Fathers did not just throw the Constitution together over a few quaffs of ale at the local tavern. They knew that the strength of the nation would depend upon every citizen to fully understand their rights and responsibilities, so they made it a point to say what they meant, precisely and with deep thought. They wrote it so that it could be taught to, and understood by every school-age child in America. They wrote it so that "interpretation" was neither necessary nor allowed.
So, why would judges believe it needs to be "interpreted"? They don't. Instead, they intentionally use interpretations to push their own personal activist agendas. And that is so very un-American and unconstitutional.
The Constitution even deals with this issue by stating that its content and meaning cannot be changed except by a lawfully executed amendment - and the amendment process is intentionally long and arduous.
But our judges, and even our politicians have been making loads of changes to the Constitution by the method of "interpretation" instead of the amendment process. By circumventing the Constitution and its intent, they are robbing all of us of our freedoms.
So what is the answer? A Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits any judges or elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution from making any interpretations, and from passing laws based on interpretations, and that the Constitution is to be taken as it was written - literally. And in the event that the people should choose to interpret it differently, the interpretation can only be effected by an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, if the people choose that health care, welfare or gay marriage should be basic human rights, they may make that the law only by passing an amendment to the Constitution to that effect. Until then, the Constitution may only be followed to the letter, as written.
Such an amendment would serve to protect everyone from activist judges and corrupt politicians on both sides, and would go a long way toward restoring our freedoms. And restoring freedoms is good for the nation, the economy and the people.
/
Facts About The Civil Rights Act of 1964
I find it not only interesting, but also confusing that the black community votes pretty much as a bloc for the Democrat party. They claim it is because the Democrats have their best interests at heart.
Upon investigation, it appears that it is the black community that may be confused and not me.
The man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves was the nation's first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
The only high-ranking member of the KKK who was elected to the Senate and is still there - and who voted against the Civil Rights Act - is a Democrat (Senator Byrd of WV).
But get this - minorities claim, as do the Democrats, that it was the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that is untrue, and here are the actual historical statistics:
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act, while 80% of Republicans voted for it. 34 Republicans voted "no", but 96 Democrats voted "no".
In the Senate, 69% of Democrats voted for the act, while 82% of Republicans voted for it.
So history tells us the Democrats' claims to passing the Civil Rights Act are incorrect. The only reason they can make that claim is because a Democrat president signed the bill into law. What they do not tell you is that he had no choice - the majority was so large, they would have over-ruled his veto by putting the bill before him a second and third time. According to the Constitution, the president may only veto a bill twice. If it comes to his desk a third time, it becomes law whether he signs it or not.
So, besides being lied to and conned by the Democrat party, why would minorities continue voting for them? Because Democrats are the party of entitlements, and entitlements are just as addictive as any drug. And because of the discrimination that used to be widely prevalent years ago, it was minorities who ended up on the welfare rolls. And now they are trapped by the very party that provided them the drug. Republicans wanted to take a different tack - to provide minorities with greater opportunities rather than making them dependent. But once addicted to a drug, it is very difficult to kick the habit.
As a drug addict protects his dealer, minorities protect the Democratic party.
So, if you belong to a minority and vote Democrat, stop BS'ing people that you vote that way because the Democrats treat you better and own up to the real reason you support them - they provide you with all the excuses for not bettering yourself. They make it easy for you to fail.
And now they are doing it again with a new entitlement aimed at another group of people. By getting people addicted to nationalized health care, they are buying votes yet again, because they give weak people the excuses necessary to explain their failures.
No, I am not saying we should ignore the needs of the helpless. All Republicans want to help the helpless. But unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to draw the line at supporting the clueless, the lazy, the useless. They deserve to be on their own.
/
Upon investigation, it appears that it is the black community that may be confused and not me.
The man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves was the nation's first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
The only high-ranking member of the KKK who was elected to the Senate and is still there - and who voted against the Civil Rights Act - is a Democrat (Senator Byrd of WV).
But get this - minorities claim, as do the Democrats, that it was the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that is untrue, and here are the actual historical statistics:
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act, while 80% of Republicans voted for it. 34 Republicans voted "no", but 96 Democrats voted "no".
In the Senate, 69% of Democrats voted for the act, while 82% of Republicans voted for it.
So history tells us the Democrats' claims to passing the Civil Rights Act are incorrect. The only reason they can make that claim is because a Democrat president signed the bill into law. What they do not tell you is that he had no choice - the majority was so large, they would have over-ruled his veto by putting the bill before him a second and third time. According to the Constitution, the president may only veto a bill twice. If it comes to his desk a third time, it becomes law whether he signs it or not.
So, besides being lied to and conned by the Democrat party, why would minorities continue voting for them? Because Democrats are the party of entitlements, and entitlements are just as addictive as any drug. And because of the discrimination that used to be widely prevalent years ago, it was minorities who ended up on the welfare rolls. And now they are trapped by the very party that provided them the drug. Republicans wanted to take a different tack - to provide minorities with greater opportunities rather than making them dependent. But once addicted to a drug, it is very difficult to kick the habit.
As a drug addict protects his dealer, minorities protect the Democratic party.
So, if you belong to a minority and vote Democrat, stop BS'ing people that you vote that way because the Democrats treat you better and own up to the real reason you support them - they provide you with all the excuses for not bettering yourself. They make it easy for you to fail.
And now they are doing it again with a new entitlement aimed at another group of people. By getting people addicted to nationalized health care, they are buying votes yet again, because they give weak people the excuses necessary to explain their failures.
No, I am not saying we should ignore the needs of the helpless. All Republicans want to help the helpless. But unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to draw the line at supporting the clueless, the lazy, the useless. They deserve to be on their own.
/
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Progressives' Trickery & Deceit
I am going to go on record with another dire prediction. As many of my regular readers know, my predictions tend to be painfully accurate.
Throughout the health care debate, the progressive liberals who pushed the bill kept refuting that illegal aliens would be covered - that American taxpayers would not be required to provide free or subsidized care to people who came here illegally, broke our laws and took our jobs.
But here is the clincher, folks - while they may have been technically accurate, they were very deceptive.
The next major legislation to go before Congress will be "immigration reform" (by the way, whatever happened to their promise to take care of Americans by addressing JOBS???). And here is my prediction: The "comprehensive immigration reform bill" will include simple methods for illegals to become legal. 12,000,000 or more illegals will suddenly become legal, and as such will have access to the taxpayer-funded health care. So, this bill will not stop at adding "only" 32 million people into the waiting rooms. That figure will quickly rise to 50 million or more, as the new "legals" begin bringing in their families. After all, bleeding heart liberals will tell you that we must let the families in because it would be cruel to separate families. They will liken it to the Berlin Wall of the 50's. So the immigration reform will, at some point, also allow illegals to bring in their families, adding much greater strain to the shrinking jobs market and overburdened schools and hospitals.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they will pass such a bill. Only that they will certainly try, and will use every dirty trick (again) at their disposal.
So, here is what the dishonest liberals are doing - first, they pass a health care bill with assurances that illegals will not burden the system. And they keep those promises by making the illegals "legal".
This is the kind of deceit that we have come to expect from liberal progressives - they will tell any lie, use any trick to push their socialism on America. And they are winning because the voters are being taken in by the grand promises without bothering to look to the end game - the real purpose the liberals are pushing.
When Obama promised "change", too many voters never bothered to ask WHAT change. And when liberals promise no illegals will be entitled to coverage, people never bothered to ask if illegals would be made legal.
As voters, if you care at all about the kind of America you will be leaving for your children and grandchildren, you need to start asking the right questions, and demand straight answers. Do not let them answer a question with another question. And do not let them redirect and answer a different question so as to confuse the issue.
I realize that many of you may not like Fox News, believing it to be too conservative. But one thing is absolutely certain and easily documented - the only news programs asking the right questions are the Fox people. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Van Susteren - these are the only ones who ask the right questions that pointed out the truth about the liberal agenda.
It was FOX watchers who knew about the ACORN scandal nearly a month before non-watchers. It was FOX viewers who knew about the John Edwards issues nearly 2 months before non-viewers. And it is Fox fans that knew about Jeremiah Wright nearly 6 months ahead of everyone else.
Look, folks, you do not need to agree with the political views of FOX in order to watch it to learn both sides of an issue, and be better informed. Ignorance does not serve anyone well. If you want to be the "hear no evil, see no evil..." sort, that's fine. But then you can expect to get taken advantage of, like when the progresssive Marxists told you that the 12-15 million illegals would not get treated on your dime.
Regardless of your political affiliation, it is wise to be well-informed, even when that means you have to hear things you would rather not hear.
And while I am in the mood for predictions, I'll make another - within the next 24 months, our government will attempt to institute a consumption tax - a national sales tax. Or even more dastardly and devastating, a VAT (Value Added Tax). This will be IN ADDITION TO the income tax, which, if passed, will result in double taxation - taxed when you earn it, and taxed again when you spend it.
Make no mistake - progressive liberals want to control all the money. To get that control they must create a socialist government. And that is why they push nationalized health care, nationalized education, immigration "reform", cap and trade and the global warming crap, nationalizing everything. By nationalizing, government is forced to grow, and the cost of government grows with it. The ONLY way to cover those rapidly rising costs is to tax the people more and more. And that, my friends, is how they will win - and we will lose.
Whenever you allow government to grow, you make it cost more. Whenever it costs more, they MUST tax you more until everyone but the government is in poverty, and the people enslaved.
Take Cleveland, where the liberals in control for decades made the local government grow beyond the people's capacity to pay for it. The city is bankrupt and in decline, rated as the worst city in America. Houston, on the other hand, has very little government, resulting in lower taxes and more personal freedoms. And it is rated one of America's top cities, experiencing growth and prosperity. Look at the states facing bankruptcy and moral decline - every one has been under the control of liberal progressives for at least two decades. Now look at the most successful, prosperous states - they have the least government and lowest taxes, and have been run by conservatives for at least two decades. Do you not see a pattern, folks?
Don't let the liberal lies of "redistributing the wealth to benefit everyone" fool you into thinking the La-La Land mindset actually works in the real world. It does not. Just look at California - a wonderful state that had it all, driven into bankruptcy and decline because the people allowed the state government to give them everything they wanted. Like children who want to have all the candy and ice cream they can eat, and the parents giving it to them.
/
/
Throughout the health care debate, the progressive liberals who pushed the bill kept refuting that illegal aliens would be covered - that American taxpayers would not be required to provide free or subsidized care to people who came here illegally, broke our laws and took our jobs.
But here is the clincher, folks - while they may have been technically accurate, they were very deceptive.
The next major legislation to go before Congress will be "immigration reform" (by the way, whatever happened to their promise to take care of Americans by addressing JOBS???). And here is my prediction: The "comprehensive immigration reform bill" will include simple methods for illegals to become legal. 12,000,000 or more illegals will suddenly become legal, and as such will have access to the taxpayer-funded health care. So, this bill will not stop at adding "only" 32 million people into the waiting rooms. That figure will quickly rise to 50 million or more, as the new "legals" begin bringing in their families. After all, bleeding heart liberals will tell you that we must let the families in because it would be cruel to separate families. They will liken it to the Berlin Wall of the 50's. So the immigration reform will, at some point, also allow illegals to bring in their families, adding much greater strain to the shrinking jobs market and overburdened schools and hospitals.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they will pass such a bill. Only that they will certainly try, and will use every dirty trick (again) at their disposal.
So, here is what the dishonest liberals are doing - first, they pass a health care bill with assurances that illegals will not burden the system. And they keep those promises by making the illegals "legal".
This is the kind of deceit that we have come to expect from liberal progressives - they will tell any lie, use any trick to push their socialism on America. And they are winning because the voters are being taken in by the grand promises without bothering to look to the end game - the real purpose the liberals are pushing.
When Obama promised "change", too many voters never bothered to ask WHAT change. And when liberals promise no illegals will be entitled to coverage, people never bothered to ask if illegals would be made legal.
As voters, if you care at all about the kind of America you will be leaving for your children and grandchildren, you need to start asking the right questions, and demand straight answers. Do not let them answer a question with another question. And do not let them redirect and answer a different question so as to confuse the issue.
I realize that many of you may not like Fox News, believing it to be too conservative. But one thing is absolutely certain and easily documented - the only news programs asking the right questions are the Fox people. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Van Susteren - these are the only ones who ask the right questions that pointed out the truth about the liberal agenda.
It was FOX watchers who knew about the ACORN scandal nearly a month before non-watchers. It was FOX viewers who knew about the John Edwards issues nearly 2 months before non-viewers. And it is Fox fans that knew about Jeremiah Wright nearly 6 months ahead of everyone else.
Look, folks, you do not need to agree with the political views of FOX in order to watch it to learn both sides of an issue, and be better informed. Ignorance does not serve anyone well. If you want to be the "hear no evil, see no evil..." sort, that's fine. But then you can expect to get taken advantage of, like when the progresssive Marxists told you that the 12-15 million illegals would not get treated on your dime.
Regardless of your political affiliation, it is wise to be well-informed, even when that means you have to hear things you would rather not hear.
And while I am in the mood for predictions, I'll make another - within the next 24 months, our government will attempt to institute a consumption tax - a national sales tax. Or even more dastardly and devastating, a VAT (Value Added Tax). This will be IN ADDITION TO the income tax, which, if passed, will result in double taxation - taxed when you earn it, and taxed again when you spend it.
Make no mistake - progressive liberals want to control all the money. To get that control they must create a socialist government. And that is why they push nationalized health care, nationalized education, immigration "reform", cap and trade and the global warming crap, nationalizing everything. By nationalizing, government is forced to grow, and the cost of government grows with it. The ONLY way to cover those rapidly rising costs is to tax the people more and more. And that, my friends, is how they will win - and we will lose.
Whenever you allow government to grow, you make it cost more. Whenever it costs more, they MUST tax you more until everyone but the government is in poverty, and the people enslaved.
Take Cleveland, where the liberals in control for decades made the local government grow beyond the people's capacity to pay for it. The city is bankrupt and in decline, rated as the worst city in America. Houston, on the other hand, has very little government, resulting in lower taxes and more personal freedoms. And it is rated one of America's top cities, experiencing growth and prosperity. Look at the states facing bankruptcy and moral decline - every one has been under the control of liberal progressives for at least two decades. Now look at the most successful, prosperous states - they have the least government and lowest taxes, and have been run by conservatives for at least two decades. Do you not see a pattern, folks?
Don't let the liberal lies of "redistributing the wealth to benefit everyone" fool you into thinking the La-La Land mindset actually works in the real world. It does not. Just look at California - a wonderful state that had it all, driven into bankruptcy and decline because the people allowed the state government to give them everything they wanted. Like children who want to have all the candy and ice cream they can eat, and the parents giving it to them.
/
/
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Better (Cheaper) Solutions for Health Care
The health care bill has been passed, but the battle has only begun. So there is still good reason to investigate better solutions. I'll pop out the ones I came up with several years ago, just to get the imagination fired up.
1) All medical and drug research and development that proves to have promise should be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Then when the medical procedure, equipment or drug becomes available, the makers cannot add R&D costs to the prices they charge. A $150 prescription would fall to under $20. A $500,000 machine would cost the hospital less than $50,000. Also, since R&D dollars do not need to be recouped, the drug companies do not need exclusive licenses, and generics can be made available much sooner. Instead, a flat 15% tax on medicine and new developments would help fund the R&D. That would still mean a huge savings - the $150 prescription would still only be $23.
2) Insurance companies would list the various components of their coverages - major medical, catastrophic, prescriptions etc. Consumers can put together a personalized policy based only on their needs. All insurance can be purchased anywhere, regardless of the state in which you live. You could shop around and get your major medical from company A, your prescriptions from company B etc. Comparison shopping for components always reduces overall costs, as insurers must then compete with one another.
3) Medical malpractice suits limited to actions involving wrongful intent or wrongful gross negligence. Mere negligence, caused by an unintended accident is only human. Gross negilgence is different - and would have to have a degree of intent to it. Lawsuits for accidental harm would be limited to actual losses. In other words, punish those who do wrong, but not those who simply make a human mistake.
4) Lawyers in malpractice suits should be limited to a fair wage for the number of hours involved. No more of this collecting a large percentage equaling millions.
5) Like drivers who pay higher premiums if they are accident prone, people who make poor life choices would pay higher insurance premiums. If you smoke, drink, eat too much sugar or salt - well, expect to pay more, because you are the one who is driving up costs for everyone else.
6) Require "food" manufacturer's to limit additives, chemicals, antibiotics and pesticides in their foods to only the necessary amounts for preservation. The so-called "food" available in supermarkets is so inferior as food that it causes nearly 60% of all maladies. Perhaps subsidize producers of natural, organic foods to make good, wholesome food less costly. Subsidies could be paid for from taxes imposed on manufacturer's for their use of chemicals. If they add high fructose corn syrup, for example, they must pay a tax to do so. That tax income would subsidize the production of wholesome foods. If healthy foods cost less than unhealthy foods, more people will eat the healthy foods, resulting in a healthier nation. That means less burden on the health care system, resulting in better quality and lower costs. The biggest (no pun intended) users of the health care system are the poor among us, because they simply cannot afford wholesome foods or a healthy diet.
These few simple things are estimated to reduce costs of health care by at least 22%. And since the only thing wrong with America's health care is its expense, this reduction in cost would not affect quality of care, but would put millions more people in reach of affordable health care.
The ONLY people who should be getting free or subsidized care are children and those who, by no fault of their own, cannot care for themselves. This would not include people who are capable but unwilling to care for themselves.
/
1) All medical and drug research and development that proves to have promise should be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Then when the medical procedure, equipment or drug becomes available, the makers cannot add R&D costs to the prices they charge. A $150 prescription would fall to under $20. A $500,000 machine would cost the hospital less than $50,000. Also, since R&D dollars do not need to be recouped, the drug companies do not need exclusive licenses, and generics can be made available much sooner. Instead, a flat 15% tax on medicine and new developments would help fund the R&D. That would still mean a huge savings - the $150 prescription would still only be $23.
2) Insurance companies would list the various components of their coverages - major medical, catastrophic, prescriptions etc. Consumers can put together a personalized policy based only on their needs. All insurance can be purchased anywhere, regardless of the state in which you live. You could shop around and get your major medical from company A, your prescriptions from company B etc. Comparison shopping for components always reduces overall costs, as insurers must then compete with one another.
3) Medical malpractice suits limited to actions involving wrongful intent or wrongful gross negligence. Mere negligence, caused by an unintended accident is only human. Gross negilgence is different - and would have to have a degree of intent to it. Lawsuits for accidental harm would be limited to actual losses. In other words, punish those who do wrong, but not those who simply make a human mistake.
4) Lawyers in malpractice suits should be limited to a fair wage for the number of hours involved. No more of this collecting a large percentage equaling millions.
5) Like drivers who pay higher premiums if they are accident prone, people who make poor life choices would pay higher insurance premiums. If you smoke, drink, eat too much sugar or salt - well, expect to pay more, because you are the one who is driving up costs for everyone else.
6) Require "food" manufacturer's to limit additives, chemicals, antibiotics and pesticides in their foods to only the necessary amounts for preservation. The so-called "food" available in supermarkets is so inferior as food that it causes nearly 60% of all maladies. Perhaps subsidize producers of natural, organic foods to make good, wholesome food less costly. Subsidies could be paid for from taxes imposed on manufacturer's for their use of chemicals. If they add high fructose corn syrup, for example, they must pay a tax to do so. That tax income would subsidize the production of wholesome foods. If healthy foods cost less than unhealthy foods, more people will eat the healthy foods, resulting in a healthier nation. That means less burden on the health care system, resulting in better quality and lower costs. The biggest (no pun intended) users of the health care system are the poor among us, because they simply cannot afford wholesome foods or a healthy diet.
These few simple things are estimated to reduce costs of health care by at least 22%. And since the only thing wrong with America's health care is its expense, this reduction in cost would not affect quality of care, but would put millions more people in reach of affordable health care.
The ONLY people who should be getting free or subsidized care are children and those who, by no fault of their own, cannot care for themselves. This would not include people who are capable but unwilling to care for themselves.
/
Monday, March 22, 2010
Out Of Business???
As a small business owner, beginning in 2014 I will be forced to insure all of my employees. At $800/month per employee, times 3 employees, that comes to an annual cost of nearly $29,000.
My employees have an average salary, with benefits, of roughly $30,000/year.
In order to cover all my employees without going bankrupt, I will have to lay off at least 1 employee. That is 1/3 of the entire work force. So, I will also have to cut back on the services my company provides.
There are over 9 million small businesses like mine across the country. If each only has to lay off one person, that will result in another 9,000,000 unemployed persons that the rest of us will have to support.
And Obama, Pelosi and Reid say this health care bill will create jobs. Maybe government jobs, but businesses will have to cut jobs to pay the additional costs being forced upon them.
I also have a neighbor who used to earn over $60,000/year, but the poor economy has forced him into a $30,000/year job. But his mortgage is still $1500+ per month (about $19,000/year). That leaves him $11,000 per year to support his family of four. The government will require he buy insurance (family plan of roughly $800/month, or about $10,000/year). That leaves his family $1000 to live on for a year. Impossible. He will lose his home, everything he has invested in it, and be forced into bankruptcy.
And that, my friends, will be the real impact of this health care plan. Lost jobs. Lost wealth. Bankruptcies and foreclosures. More people on the public teat, with fewer people producing anything.
And to make things worse - many will be forced to pay for insurance they cannot use, anyway. There is always a co-pay for care. If my neighbor needs a colonoscopy, his "share" of the cost would be $300. With only $11,000 a year to live on (before insurance costs), he certainly cannot afford that, so he will not get that colonoscopy. Hence, he'll be forced to pay big bucks for something he cannot even use.
It's a lot like having a car payment, but no money for gas.
That's the way progressives run a country. Either get used to it, or change it by getting rid of the progressive liberals. If you don't, it will only get much, much worse...
/
My employees have an average salary, with benefits, of roughly $30,000/year.
In order to cover all my employees without going bankrupt, I will have to lay off at least 1 employee. That is 1/3 of the entire work force. So, I will also have to cut back on the services my company provides.
There are over 9 million small businesses like mine across the country. If each only has to lay off one person, that will result in another 9,000,000 unemployed persons that the rest of us will have to support.
And Obama, Pelosi and Reid say this health care bill will create jobs. Maybe government jobs, but businesses will have to cut jobs to pay the additional costs being forced upon them.
I also have a neighbor who used to earn over $60,000/year, but the poor economy has forced him into a $30,000/year job. But his mortgage is still $1500+ per month (about $19,000/year). That leaves him $11,000 per year to support his family of four. The government will require he buy insurance (family plan of roughly $800/month, or about $10,000/year). That leaves his family $1000 to live on for a year. Impossible. He will lose his home, everything he has invested in it, and be forced into bankruptcy.
And that, my friends, will be the real impact of this health care plan. Lost jobs. Lost wealth. Bankruptcies and foreclosures. More people on the public teat, with fewer people producing anything.
And to make things worse - many will be forced to pay for insurance they cannot use, anyway. There is always a co-pay for care. If my neighbor needs a colonoscopy, his "share" of the cost would be $300. With only $11,000 a year to live on (before insurance costs), he certainly cannot afford that, so he will not get that colonoscopy. Hence, he'll be forced to pay big bucks for something he cannot even use.
It's a lot like having a car payment, but no money for gas.
That's the way progressives run a country. Either get used to it, or change it by getting rid of the progressive liberals. If you don't, it will only get much, much worse...
/
Commerce Clause
The liberals who pushed this health care bill through claim they have the power to do so under the "commerce clause" in the Constitution. Strange they should think that, since the commerce clause is quoted as "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
So, how does their bill, which forces all Americans to buy insurance, coincide with the commerce clause? It does not.
1) The commerce clause restricts the government to regulating international and interstate commerce (and Indian Tribes) only - it is very specific on that point. It has no power to regulate intra-state commerce, and has no power to regulate a refusal to engage in commerce.
2) The clause in no way gives the government the power to regulate NON-commerce. If I choose to not buy insurance, there is no commerce. And if I buy insurance from an in-state company, there is no interstate commerce. In either case, the commerce clause does not apply.
3) The clause does not give the government the power to FORCE commerce where commerce is not wanted. But by forcing citizens to buy insurance, they are forcing commerce.
Now, some say that federal law trumps state law. But that is only true in areas where the Constitution has given the government power in the Powers Clause. If the Powers Clause does not provide the power to the government, then the state laws trump federal laws because those federal laws are unconstitutional. In other words, the Constitution trumps federal law.
States may pass health care laws if their state Constitution permits. But the federal government has no authority to do so according to the Constitution.
Others will say the government may, indeed, force free citizens to buy certain products for the good of the nation. But there is nothing in the Powers Clause that permits that.
And then there are those who try the bogus claim that states can madate car insurance, so health insurance can also be mandated. What these folks fail to understand are two important differences: 1) it is the STATES, not the government that mandates car insurance. New Hampshire, for example, does not mandate insurance, and 2) car insurance is not forced on EVERYONE - it is simply a condition of driving a vehicle on public ways. You need not buy car insurance if you do not choose to drive. Driving is a pesonal choice and a privilege, not a right, so states may regulate it. But natural born citizens have a RIGHT to live in America. It is not a privilege. For the government to claim you must buy a product if you want to live here takes away your God-given birthright and turns it into a mere privilege.
The simple fact is, the health care bill violates the Constitution. It does not comply with the commerce clause, nor does it comply with other rights granted to individuals and states.
/
So, how does their bill, which forces all Americans to buy insurance, coincide with the commerce clause? It does not.
1) The commerce clause restricts the government to regulating international and interstate commerce (and Indian Tribes) only - it is very specific on that point. It has no power to regulate intra-state commerce, and has no power to regulate a refusal to engage in commerce.
2) The clause in no way gives the government the power to regulate NON-commerce. If I choose to not buy insurance, there is no commerce. And if I buy insurance from an in-state company, there is no interstate commerce. In either case, the commerce clause does not apply.
3) The clause does not give the government the power to FORCE commerce where commerce is not wanted. But by forcing citizens to buy insurance, they are forcing commerce.
Now, some say that federal law trumps state law. But that is only true in areas where the Constitution has given the government power in the Powers Clause. If the Powers Clause does not provide the power to the government, then the state laws trump federal laws because those federal laws are unconstitutional. In other words, the Constitution trumps federal law.
States may pass health care laws if their state Constitution permits. But the federal government has no authority to do so according to the Constitution.
Others will say the government may, indeed, force free citizens to buy certain products for the good of the nation. But there is nothing in the Powers Clause that permits that.
And then there are those who try the bogus claim that states can madate car insurance, so health insurance can also be mandated. What these folks fail to understand are two important differences: 1) it is the STATES, not the government that mandates car insurance. New Hampshire, for example, does not mandate insurance, and 2) car insurance is not forced on EVERYONE - it is simply a condition of driving a vehicle on public ways. You need not buy car insurance if you do not choose to drive. Driving is a pesonal choice and a privilege, not a right, so states may regulate it. But natural born citizens have a RIGHT to live in America. It is not a privilege. For the government to claim you must buy a product if you want to live here takes away your God-given birthright and turns it into a mere privilege.
The simple fact is, the health care bill violates the Constitution. It does not comply with the commerce clause, nor does it comply with other rights granted to individuals and states.
/
Jobs????
After Scott Brown walked away as the new Senator from Massachusetts, President Obama promised that he got the message - to work on JOBS and put health care on the back burner. Jobs first, he said, which is what the people have been saying for over a year.
Well, as usual he did not tell the truth. Jobs continued to take a back seat to health care, roiling the people. But he did not care - the progressives have an agenda they think is much more important than the people or the nation.
OK, so now they have their socialist health. Now can we concentrate on jobs, please?
Apparently not. It seems Congress is now preparing to put its efforts into yet another radical, socialist venture - immigration "reform". Another word for amnesty for illegals and imposing a national ID on real citizens. And the Prez? Well, he's going "on the road" to try and convince the people that his health bill is a GOOD thing, in the hopes of saving a few Democrat seats in Congress come November - good luck with that!
So, it still is not about jobs. Or the people. Or the country. No, it's about keeping power for themselves and pushing America closer to a socialist state.
Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America. It's not the change that 53% of the people thought they were getting, but that's only because they weren't really listening. He said he would "fundamentally change America." But 53% of the voters never bothered to ask WHAT needed to be "fundamentally changed", and HOW would he change it.
Folks, we knew nothing of this person. He had no management experience whatever. Every name in his address book was a socialist, marxist or communist. Yet 53% of the people blindly voted for this empty suit with a marxist in it.
When you buy a "pig-in-a-poke", you deserve to be taken in. And you were!
/
Well, as usual he did not tell the truth. Jobs continued to take a back seat to health care, roiling the people. But he did not care - the progressives have an agenda they think is much more important than the people or the nation.
OK, so now they have their socialist health. Now can we concentrate on jobs, please?
Apparently not. It seems Congress is now preparing to put its efforts into yet another radical, socialist venture - immigration "reform". Another word for amnesty for illegals and imposing a national ID on real citizens. And the Prez? Well, he's going "on the road" to try and convince the people that his health bill is a GOOD thing, in the hopes of saving a few Democrat seats in Congress come November - good luck with that!
So, it still is not about jobs. Or the people. Or the country. No, it's about keeping power for themselves and pushing America closer to a socialist state.
Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America. It's not the change that 53% of the people thought they were getting, but that's only because they weren't really listening. He said he would "fundamentally change America." But 53% of the voters never bothered to ask WHAT needed to be "fundamentally changed", and HOW would he change it.
Folks, we knew nothing of this person. He had no management experience whatever. Every name in his address book was a socialist, marxist or communist. Yet 53% of the people blindly voted for this empty suit with a marxist in it.
When you buy a "pig-in-a-poke", you deserve to be taken in. And you were!
/
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Becoming the Borg
Has Anyone Seen My Country?
When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.
When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.
There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow.
My friends and I could camp at Amy Brook, stick a nightcrawler on the hook and catch a mess of trout, build a campfire and fry 'em up, all just for the doin'. Now, you need a camping permit, a fire permit and a fishing license. And no more nightcrawlers - it's fly fishing only.
In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.
But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules.
That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.
It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.
Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.
When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.
Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.
Has anyone seen my country lately?
/
When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.
When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.
There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow.
My friends and I could camp at Amy Brook, stick a nightcrawler on the hook and catch a mess of trout, build a campfire and fry 'em up, all just for the doin'. Now, you need a camping permit, a fire permit and a fishing license. And no more nightcrawlers - it's fly fishing only.
In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.
But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules.
That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.
It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.
Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.
When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.
Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.
Has anyone seen my country lately?
/
Daring To Compare
Connecticut Rep. John Larson, chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said flatly Sunday morning that "we have the votes" to pass health care reform legislation in the House.
Speaking on ABC's This Week, Larson said, "We are going to make history today. Not since President Roosevelt passed Social Security, Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare, and today, Barack Obama will pass health care reform, demonstrating whose side we're on."
Perhaps someone should remind Rep. Larson that the "history" made by both Roosevelt and Johnson are both bankrupt. Neither came close to costing as little as was promised, both are bankrupt, and the American people now owe nearly 70 trillion dollars in unfunded future payouts - 32 trillion for Medicare, alone. And now the Democrats want to expand that.
So, he compares this health care bill to two other massive, budget-busting boondoggle entitlements. Great! That's just what we need.
NOT!
/
Speaking on ABC's This Week, Larson said, "We are going to make history today. Not since President Roosevelt passed Social Security, Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare, and today, Barack Obama will pass health care reform, demonstrating whose side we're on."
Perhaps someone should remind Rep. Larson that the "history" made by both Roosevelt and Johnson are both bankrupt. Neither came close to costing as little as was promised, both are bankrupt, and the American people now owe nearly 70 trillion dollars in unfunded future payouts - 32 trillion for Medicare, alone. And now the Democrats want to expand that.
So, he compares this health care bill to two other massive, budget-busting boondoggle entitlements. Great! That's just what we need.
NOT!
/
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Would Be Funny If Not So Pathetic
I was cruisin' through the news today, and found this:
"WASHINGTON – Thousands of protesters — many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama — marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."
Typical liberal BS.
Today was the day that Tea Partiers were scheduled to rally in Washington to oppose the Health Care bill. And show up they did - busload after busload came to DC to rally against Obama-care.
Cindy Sheehan and a handful of her fellow malcontents decided to use that backdrop to stage their own little protest, to make it look like all those folks were there to protest the wars.
And the liberal lamestream media fell in line - the news of the day was as you see, above.
But a few intrepid reporters, among them FOX NEWS, were on-site to report the truth. If not for them, the media would successfully "kill" the Tea Party rally against Obama-care and paint the entire thing as a "popular protest against the wars."
Only goes to prove what I have been saying for years - if you want to know the truth of what is really going on, blow off the lamestream media and watch FOX. They may, indeed, have a conservative bent, but at least they tell the truth.
/
"WASHINGTON – Thousands of protesters — many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama — marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."
Typical liberal BS.
Today was the day that Tea Partiers were scheduled to rally in Washington to oppose the Health Care bill. And show up they did - busload after busload came to DC to rally against Obama-care.
Cindy Sheehan and a handful of her fellow malcontents decided to use that backdrop to stage their own little protest, to make it look like all those folks were there to protest the wars.
And the liberal lamestream media fell in line - the news of the day was as you see, above.
But a few intrepid reporters, among them FOX NEWS, were on-site to report the truth. If not for them, the media would successfully "kill" the Tea Party rally against Obama-care and paint the entire thing as a "popular protest against the wars."
Only goes to prove what I have been saying for years - if you want to know the truth of what is really going on, blow off the lamestream media and watch FOX. They may, indeed, have a conservative bent, but at least they tell the truth.
/
Our Constitution Part VIII
Success requires the freedom to succeed. Freedom depends on our Constitution.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is another one of our God-given rights that progressive liberals take issue with, and activist judges try to infringe by making "interpretations", even though it is simply put, concise, and needs no interpretatation.
The argument liberals make is that they believe "militia" means armed services, i.e. National Guard, Army etc. But in the day when the Constitution was written, as seen in other parts of the document, the militia was apart from any organized army, and consisted of ordinary citizenry, armed, who could be called to defend the community, state or government as required, as were the Minutemen on the Concord Green that fateful April morning in 1776.
More to the point is that the amendment specifically and clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This portion is distinct from the first section about militia. The amendment is clear - every American citizen has a God-given right to defend himself, his community, state and government, and a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, and such right may not be infringed- not by states, Congress or activist liberal judges.
/
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is another one of our God-given rights that progressive liberals take issue with, and activist judges try to infringe by making "interpretations", even though it is simply put, concise, and needs no interpretatation.
The argument liberals make is that they believe "militia" means armed services, i.e. National Guard, Army etc. But in the day when the Constitution was written, as seen in other parts of the document, the militia was apart from any organized army, and consisted of ordinary citizenry, armed, who could be called to defend the community, state or government as required, as were the Minutemen on the Concord Green that fateful April morning in 1776.
More to the point is that the amendment specifically and clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This portion is distinct from the first section about militia. The amendment is clear - every American citizen has a God-given right to defend himself, his community, state and government, and a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, and such right may not be infringed- not by states, Congress or activist liberal judges.
/
Friday, March 19, 2010
Powers of the Government
In response to the previous post I have already received queries as to what powers, exactly, the Constitution bestows upon our government. I will list them here - bear in mind, this is a direct and exact quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
* To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
* To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
* To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
* To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
* To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
* To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
* To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
* To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
* To provide and maintain a Navy;
* To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
* To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
* To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Now bear in mind that the 10th Amendment states that the government has NO other powers. None. And nowhere in this enumeration of powers do I see anything that could even vaguely allow offering or mandating entitlements of any kind. The only "welfare" the government may concern itself with is the general welfare - the welfare of the entire nation, and not individuals, groups or special interests.
So now you know.
/
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
* To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
* To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
* To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
* To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
* To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
* To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
* To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
* To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
* To provide and maintain a Navy;
* To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
* To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
* To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Now bear in mind that the 10th Amendment states that the government has NO other powers. None. And nowhere in this enumeration of powers do I see anything that could even vaguely allow offering or mandating entitlements of any kind. The only "welfare" the government may concern itself with is the general welfare - the welfare of the entire nation, and not individuals, groups or special interests.
So now you know.
/
Why Republicans Never Addressed "Health Care"
This post is in response to those who throw out the accusation that the Republicans, in all their years in office, did not address health care.
That is true - they did not. And for good reason.
Republicans and Democrats differ in nature, as they must or they would be the same party. Democrats believe the government should take care of everyone. Republicans believe we should take care of ourselves (self-reliance) and the government's job is to get out of the way and let us do that.
But the reason is actually deeper than that - unlike liberals, who have little use for the Constitution and like to make believe it is a "living, evolving" document, Republicans take the Constitution literally, because the Constitution says we must - any changes, no matter how minor can only be by amendment.
And nowhere in the Constitution does the government have the authority to provide any entitlements of any kind. None. In fact, the Constitution actually prohibits it in the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In other words, if the power is not specifically granted in the Constitution, then the government does not have that power, nor can it assume it. And the Constitution is exceedingly clear as to exactly what powers the government has. It even lists them, individually. And nowhere does the Constitution grant the government any right or authority to provide entitlements, or pay for them with taxpayer funds. Period.
The founders understood that we must first and foremost be self-reliant if we were to be strong. They also realized that some people are unable to care for themselves through no fault of their own, but that it was not the task of government to care for them - it was a task for the people (families, neighbors, church, community) or the states.
I am not saying Social Security or Medicare are necessarily "bad" things. What I am saying is that they are illegal, as they are in direct violation of the Constitution. Those things, where they become necessary, should be done by the people, or by the states. The government simply has no legal right to do them.
Republicans, because the party is based on self-reliance, understand that. And that is why they never addressed health care - it's not their job, and it would violate their oath of office.
What government CAN do is offer tort reform; pass a law that allows the purchase of insurance components across state lines; place restrictions on the practices of insurers so they cannot drop people when they get sick. And these are things Republicans have gone on record as supporting - but Democrats do not (except the latter one).
But it is 100% unconstitutional to pass any law that is even vaguely similar to an entitlement, and it is 100% unconstitutional to force free citizens to buy any specific product(s), regardless of whether or not it would benefit the nation.
/
That is true - they did not. And for good reason.
Republicans and Democrats differ in nature, as they must or they would be the same party. Democrats believe the government should take care of everyone. Republicans believe we should take care of ourselves (self-reliance) and the government's job is to get out of the way and let us do that.
But the reason is actually deeper than that - unlike liberals, who have little use for the Constitution and like to make believe it is a "living, evolving" document, Republicans take the Constitution literally, because the Constitution says we must - any changes, no matter how minor can only be by amendment.
And nowhere in the Constitution does the government have the authority to provide any entitlements of any kind. None. In fact, the Constitution actually prohibits it in the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In other words, if the power is not specifically granted in the Constitution, then the government does not have that power, nor can it assume it. And the Constitution is exceedingly clear as to exactly what powers the government has. It even lists them, individually. And nowhere does the Constitution grant the government any right or authority to provide entitlements, or pay for them with taxpayer funds. Period.
The founders understood that we must first and foremost be self-reliant if we were to be strong. They also realized that some people are unable to care for themselves through no fault of their own, but that it was not the task of government to care for them - it was a task for the people (families, neighbors, church, community) or the states.
I am not saying Social Security or Medicare are necessarily "bad" things. What I am saying is that they are illegal, as they are in direct violation of the Constitution. Those things, where they become necessary, should be done by the people, or by the states. The government simply has no legal right to do them.
Republicans, because the party is based on self-reliance, understand that. And that is why they never addressed health care - it's not their job, and it would violate their oath of office.
What government CAN do is offer tort reform; pass a law that allows the purchase of insurance components across state lines; place restrictions on the practices of insurers so they cannot drop people when they get sick. And these are things Republicans have gone on record as supporting - but Democrats do not (except the latter one).
But it is 100% unconstitutional to pass any law that is even vaguely similar to an entitlement, and it is 100% unconstitutional to force free citizens to buy any specific product(s), regardless of whether or not it would benefit the nation.
/
Things May Be Lookin' Up
Three years ago I began blogging that American voters should seriously consider voting out every single incumbent, if only to teach Congress who is in charge. At first, there seemed to be little interest in such a proposal.
But thanks to the helping hand I am getting from a very corrupt Congress and corrupt administration, polls have just come out that show, of registered voters, the following snapshots have appeared:
78% of Independents are in favor of voting out ALL incumbents
72% of all Republicans are in favor of replacing all incumbents
52% of all Democrats are in favor of dumping all incumbents.
In the coming months, with Congress already stating that they intend to use these same corrupt processes to try and force other unpopular socialist policies upon America, those polls just may get up to 100% by November.
And that would be the best thing that could happen to America right now.
But do not be complacent even if that happens. Remember, the people who actually write the bills and tell their Congressmen how to vote are the Congressional Aides. We should insist that our new Congressmen also replace the aides, as they have considerable power and are not elected into office.
/
But thanks to the helping hand I am getting from a very corrupt Congress and corrupt administration, polls have just come out that show, of registered voters, the following snapshots have appeared:
78% of Independents are in favor of voting out ALL incumbents
72% of all Republicans are in favor of replacing all incumbents
52% of all Democrats are in favor of dumping all incumbents.
In the coming months, with Congress already stating that they intend to use these same corrupt processes to try and force other unpopular socialist policies upon America, those polls just may get up to 100% by November.
And that would be the best thing that could happen to America right now.
But do not be complacent even if that happens. Remember, the people who actually write the bills and tell their Congressmen how to vote are the Congressional Aides. We should insist that our new Congressmen also replace the aides, as they have considerable power and are not elected into office.
/
My Dog
I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".
So I explained to her that my Dog is mix in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is. He expects me to feed him, provide him with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because he is a dog. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My Dog gets his first check Friday. Damn this is a great country.
/
So I explained to her that my Dog is mix in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is. He expects me to feed him, provide him with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because he is a dog. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.
My Dog gets his first check Friday. Damn this is a great country.
/
Making Mommy Proud
Rep. John Boccieri, D-Ohio, announced that he would support the bill despite voting against an earlier version. "I'm not worried about the election."
And then the truth came out when he said he changed his vote to make his mother happy.
Boccieri, perhaps it slipped your mind, but you were not elected to do the will of your mother. You were elected to do the will of the people.
Maybe Ohio should have elected Boccieri's mother...
No, he's not worried about the election, and that's a good thing since he just kissed his Congressional seat good-bye. Another liberal lemming, unable to stand on principle, bites the dust. Good riddance to bad representation.
/
And then the truth came out when he said he changed his vote to make his mother happy.
Boccieri, perhaps it slipped your mind, but you were not elected to do the will of your mother. You were elected to do the will of the people.
Maybe Ohio should have elected Boccieri's mother...
No, he's not worried about the election, and that's a good thing since he just kissed his Congressional seat good-bye. Another liberal lemming, unable to stand on principle, bites the dust. Good riddance to bad representation.
/
BS
I'm listening to Obama's health care speech this morning, and never in my life have I heard so many half-truths and lies in so short a time. Like when Obama said the CBO says his health care bill will cut a trillion off the deficit. The truth: the CBO says only 120 billion would be cut, BUT that is conditional, since the only numbers they can crunch are the numbers provided to them by Congress. And the CBO further warns those estimates from Congress are not realistic.
He says his bill is all about reforming insurance. It is. It's not about health care. It's about insurance. But he says he will force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions (which increases costs to insurers that must be passed on or they will go bankrupt), and will force insurers to pay heavier fees (same as above - must pass it on), but then says OUR costs for premiums will miraculously go down. Not even the CBO agrees with that, as they claim premiums are likely to go up about 17%.
And I notice that Obama is purposely avoiding saying anything about the terrible parts of the bill. He never mentioned the 47 new taxes we will pay. He never mentioned that we will be forced to buy insurance. He did not mention the 15,000 new jobs at the IRS because THEY will be empowered to monitor us monthly, to insure we get insurance or pay a $2250 fine. He did not mention the board that will determine who gets what care, based on actuarian tables and the persons expected "value" to society. And he never mentioned that the make-believe $500 billion that would be cut from Medicare (but never will be) is somehow being spent twice - I wish I could do that!
And he never mentioned all the new "deals" being cut, even as I write this.
And he failed to mention that we will have to pay the taxes and fees for ten years in order to get benefits for only six years.
And he never mentioned where we will find the doctors, nurses, hospitals and equipment to serve 30 million more people, particularly since the New England Journal of Medicine writes that a poll indicates up to 46.3% of all doctors may retire if this bill passes.
Look, we don't need better insurance. And we donb't need to drive insurers out of business, resulting in only a socialist government plan being available. What we need is better HEALTH CARE, and LOWER COSTS. And a little more HONESTY in the discussion would help a lot.
I would not have such an issue with his lies if only he would tell the folks EVERYTHING that is in the bill, and not just the parts that make good sound bytes.
/
He says his bill is all about reforming insurance. It is. It's not about health care. It's about insurance. But he says he will force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions (which increases costs to insurers that must be passed on or they will go bankrupt), and will force insurers to pay heavier fees (same as above - must pass it on), but then says OUR costs for premiums will miraculously go down. Not even the CBO agrees with that, as they claim premiums are likely to go up about 17%.
And I notice that Obama is purposely avoiding saying anything about the terrible parts of the bill. He never mentioned the 47 new taxes we will pay. He never mentioned that we will be forced to buy insurance. He did not mention the 15,000 new jobs at the IRS because THEY will be empowered to monitor us monthly, to insure we get insurance or pay a $2250 fine. He did not mention the board that will determine who gets what care, based on actuarian tables and the persons expected "value" to society. And he never mentioned that the make-believe $500 billion that would be cut from Medicare (but never will be) is somehow being spent twice - I wish I could do that!
And he never mentioned all the new "deals" being cut, even as I write this.
And he failed to mention that we will have to pay the taxes and fees for ten years in order to get benefits for only six years.
And he never mentioned where we will find the doctors, nurses, hospitals and equipment to serve 30 million more people, particularly since the New England Journal of Medicine writes that a poll indicates up to 46.3% of all doctors may retire if this bill passes.
Look, we don't need better insurance. And we donb't need to drive insurers out of business, resulting in only a socialist government plan being available. What we need is better HEALTH CARE, and LOWER COSTS. And a little more HONESTY in the discussion would help a lot.
I would not have such an issue with his lies if only he would tell the folks EVERYTHING that is in the bill, and not just the parts that make good sound bytes.
/
Confidential Census???
This morning, from a CNN Money report:
"How to cash in on the census
"It's way more than just a headcount -- it's market intelligence used by companies to make decisions about what people buy, what they eat, and even what they watch on TV.
Mark Roden owns 48 Subway franchises in Arizona and plans his beverage offerings based on census demographics distilled by third-party market researchers like PopStats or Nielsen Claritas."
On the Census form it states the information you provide is confidential. Yet somehow, "third party market researchers" seem to be able to access that "confidential" information and sell it to others who use it to make more money from us.
Yet another reason why the only question I answer is the actual number of persons living in my household.
/
"How to cash in on the census
"It's way more than just a headcount -- it's market intelligence used by companies to make decisions about what people buy, what they eat, and even what they watch on TV.
Mark Roden owns 48 Subway franchises in Arizona and plans his beverage offerings based on census demographics distilled by third-party market researchers like PopStats or Nielsen Claritas."
On the Census form it states the information you provide is confidential. Yet somehow, "third party market researchers" seem to be able to access that "confidential" information and sell it to others who use it to make more money from us.
Yet another reason why the only question I answer is the actual number of persons living in my household.
/
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Our Constitution, Part VII - The 1st Amendment
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression Ratified 12/15/1791.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is much simpler than progressives would have us believe, what with their phony arguments based on a fictitious "separation of church and state" which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution Bear in mind - the founders did not go to the local tavern and throw the Constitution together over a few quaffs of ale. No, they spent many months in deep discussion, to insure that the finished product would say exactly what they intended for it to say. In other words, they wrote it so any child could understand, and therefore no interpretation necessary, because they wanted to make sure every American could understand it. Any judge who places themselves in a position of interpreting any portion of the Constitution other than as it is written is acting beyond their Constitutional authority.
The 1st Amendment is exceedingly clear, and needs no interpretation. When it comes to religion, speech or the press, the government, quite simply, must butt out. They may not pass any laws that restrict our freedom in these areas. But when Congress - or activist judges - decide to pass laws that prevent any person from exercising their religious beliefs at any time or any place, in any manner, then the Congress and courts have over-stepped their jurisdiction. Which is precisely what they have done when it comes to kicking any religious debate or activity out of the public square, including schools. By removing God or religion from the public venue, they are, indeed, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Nowhere in this Amendment - or anywhere in the Constitution - is anyone guaranteed any freedom FROM religion, or guaranteed any right to not be offended. Everything on Earth offends someone, somewhere. It is not the task of the government to protect a person's sensitivities.
/
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is much simpler than progressives would have us believe, what with their phony arguments based on a fictitious "separation of church and state" which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution Bear in mind - the founders did not go to the local tavern and throw the Constitution together over a few quaffs of ale. No, they spent many months in deep discussion, to insure that the finished product would say exactly what they intended for it to say. In other words, they wrote it so any child could understand, and therefore no interpretation necessary, because they wanted to make sure every American could understand it. Any judge who places themselves in a position of interpreting any portion of the Constitution other than as it is written is acting beyond their Constitutional authority.
The 1st Amendment is exceedingly clear, and needs no interpretation. When it comes to religion, speech or the press, the government, quite simply, must butt out. They may not pass any laws that restrict our freedom in these areas. But when Congress - or activist judges - decide to pass laws that prevent any person from exercising their religious beliefs at any time or any place, in any manner, then the Congress and courts have over-stepped their jurisdiction. Which is precisely what they have done when it comes to kicking any religious debate or activity out of the public square, including schools. By removing God or religion from the public venue, they are, indeed, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Nowhere in this Amendment - or anywhere in the Constitution - is anyone guaranteed any freedom FROM religion, or guaranteed any right to not be offended. Everything on Earth offends someone, somewhere. It is not the task of the government to protect a person's sensitivities.
/
Dodd-ering Fool
Today Senator Chris Dodd (D) is presenting a bill that would create a government overhaul of the financial system.
What struck me was his statement, "This is a bipartisan bill. However, it does not enjoy bipartisan support."
Talk about double-talk. How can he tell us it is bipartisan if no one - no one - on the other side supports it?
Here is an idea, Mr. Dodd: before using big words like "bipartisan", perhaps you should look up its definition in the dictionary, first.
These idiot Democrats in Congress are either outright stupid or they think we are, because they keep saying their bills geared toward socialism, not supported by anyone in the Republican party, are somehow "bipartisan."
No wonder they are imploding.
/
What struck me was his statement, "This is a bipartisan bill. However, it does not enjoy bipartisan support."
Talk about double-talk. How can he tell us it is bipartisan if no one - no one - on the other side supports it?
Here is an idea, Mr. Dodd: before using big words like "bipartisan", perhaps you should look up its definition in the dictionary, first.
These idiot Democrats in Congress are either outright stupid or they think we are, because they keep saying their bills geared toward socialism, not supported by anyone in the Republican party, are somehow "bipartisan."
No wonder they are imploding.
/
Fuzzy Math
As expected, the CBO came in with a cost of $940 billion over the next ten years as the "cost" of the health care bill. Anything more would have killed the bill, which explains the fuzzy math used.
A couple of things:
1) the "doctor fix", costing $320 billion was removed from the health care bill, and is presented in a separate bill for the sole purpose of making the health care bill look like it will only cost $960 billion. When added together, the actual cost is $1.26 trillion
2) The $940 billion figure includes $500 billion in "savings" from Medicare cuts, to be implemented only after the next presidential election, so the next president can take the heat for what this president has done. More to the point: no Congress ever has, or ever will, cut Medicare because it would be political suicide. So, those "savings" will never happen in the real world - it's only a gimmick. This raises the overall cost to $1.76 trillion - double what the CBO has stated. Unfortunately, the CBO can only make a guess based on the figures it is given - if they are given phony numbers, the result would be phony.
As if this were not bad enough, even if the $500 billion is cut from Medicare, this health care bill spends it twice! First, it says that money will be used to reduce Medicare liabilities (now at $38 trillion). It then says it will use that money to pay for OTHER programs. In either case, the Democrats are actually counting $500 billion as $1 trillion, meaning this will cost us at least an extra half trillion bucks more than the Democrats are claiming.
3) The ONLY reason the CBO estimate comes in at under a trillion dollars is because the taxes and forced revenues from the people will begin immediately, but the benefits do not start for 4 years. In other words, it takes 10 years of your taxes to pay for only 6 years of benefits. That's like buying a car today, but not being able to drive it home for 4 years. If the benefits were to cover the ten years that we will be paying for the bill, the overall cost would be increased by yet another $400 billion
4) The CBO figures also include revenues from forcing everyone in America to buy insurance. That will never happen because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and 37 states are passing laws against it. This failure in the bill could increase its cost by over a trillion - a total of over $3 trillion.
Let's add up all the real world costs, without all the gimmicks:
$940 billion
$320 billion
$500 billion
$400 billion
$1 trillion
________________
$3.26 trillion dollars
Folks, that's is almost 4 times the "estimate" that the CBO has given based on the gimmicks of the Democrat leadership.
That is what you, your children, your grandchildren and all future generations will owe, even before they are born.
/
A couple of things:
1) the "doctor fix", costing $320 billion was removed from the health care bill, and is presented in a separate bill for the sole purpose of making the health care bill look like it will only cost $960 billion. When added together, the actual cost is $1.26 trillion
2) The $940 billion figure includes $500 billion in "savings" from Medicare cuts, to be implemented only after the next presidential election, so the next president can take the heat for what this president has done. More to the point: no Congress ever has, or ever will, cut Medicare because it would be political suicide. So, those "savings" will never happen in the real world - it's only a gimmick. This raises the overall cost to $1.76 trillion - double what the CBO has stated. Unfortunately, the CBO can only make a guess based on the figures it is given - if they are given phony numbers, the result would be phony.
As if this were not bad enough, even if the $500 billion is cut from Medicare, this health care bill spends it twice! First, it says that money will be used to reduce Medicare liabilities (now at $38 trillion). It then says it will use that money to pay for OTHER programs. In either case, the Democrats are actually counting $500 billion as $1 trillion, meaning this will cost us at least an extra half trillion bucks more than the Democrats are claiming.
3) The ONLY reason the CBO estimate comes in at under a trillion dollars is because the taxes and forced revenues from the people will begin immediately, but the benefits do not start for 4 years. In other words, it takes 10 years of your taxes to pay for only 6 years of benefits. That's like buying a car today, but not being able to drive it home for 4 years. If the benefits were to cover the ten years that we will be paying for the bill, the overall cost would be increased by yet another $400 billion
4) The CBO figures also include revenues from forcing everyone in America to buy insurance. That will never happen because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and 37 states are passing laws against it. This failure in the bill could increase its cost by over a trillion - a total of over $3 trillion.
Let's add up all the real world costs, without all the gimmicks:
$940 billion
$320 billion
$500 billion
$400 billion
$1 trillion
________________
$3.26 trillion dollars
Folks, that's is almost 4 times the "estimate" that the CBO has given based on the gimmicks of the Democrat leadership.
That is what you, your children, your grandchildren and all future generations will owe, even before they are born.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)