I'm not normally one to use the phrase in the title, but check this news item out, posted today in the news:
"WASHINGTON – The House on Thursday took up legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico's 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence. The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future."
I had blogged days ago that this would happen. I got a lot of emails from folks who said I was nuts, paranoid etc.
But I'm used to that :o)
/
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
California Hypocrites
Californians - and their leaders - are calling for a boycott of the entire state of Arizona because they (incorrectly) perceive Arizona's new immigration law promotes discrimination - even though the law specifically prohibits discrimination and racial profiling. But Californians and other liberals are not concerned with facts - they have an agenda to push forward.
What California fails to tell you is that California does hundreds of millions of dollars in business with countries that are horrendous defilers of human rights - like China. In fact, even as they protest and boycott Arizona, Cal-Asia and other California organizations and agencies are seeking to expand their business dealings with China even further, and China is trying to get involved with the building and financing of California High Speed Rail.
So why do liberals not have a problem with the severe human rights issues of China, and will contribute to it by sending hundreds of millions to China but will boycott one of their fellow states for passing a law that mimics federal law without changing federal law?
There is a word for that - hypocrites!
/
What California fails to tell you is that California does hundreds of millions of dollars in business with countries that are horrendous defilers of human rights - like China. In fact, even as they protest and boycott Arizona, Cal-Asia and other California organizations and agencies are seeking to expand their business dealings with China even further, and China is trying to get involved with the building and financing of California High Speed Rail.
So why do liberals not have a problem with the severe human rights issues of China, and will contribute to it by sending hundreds of millions to China but will boycott one of their fellow states for passing a law that mimics federal law without changing federal law?
There is a word for that - hypocrites!
/
Pop, Goes The...
People often puzzle me profoundly. Like the woman who sticks with an abusive spouse, or the citizen who keeps voting for the same people who have been treating them with disdain and disrespect.
In one particular instance, the disdain is so grand that it is a wonder the politician at the heart of it could get elected dog catcher. Yet, for 28 years the people of Pennsylvania have kept putting him in the Senate. His name - Arlen Specter.
Specter was a Democrat in 1965 when he won an election for Philadelphia district attorney on the Republican line -- so he then became a Republican. This should have been a tip-off that the man had few core principles, and therefore would have no problem betraying others if it would benefit him. Yet, the folks of Pennsylvania closed their eyes.
So it came as no surprise to me that on April 28, 2009, he switched parties yet again. He said polls showed his chances in a GOP primary rematch against conservative former congressman Pat Toomey were "bleak," so he was casting his lot with Democrats instead.
And once again he betrays those who supported him simply so he could remain in power. His ego, his own personal ambitions were more important to him than the country he was elected to serve. And make no mistake - Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents in serving the nation, not the state. Serving the state is the job of STATE legislators.
Another telling point that shows Specter's character (or lack thereof) lies in the fact that the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has endorsed him since 1998. Rick Bloomingdale, the group's incoming president, said this of Specter, "We know how to work with him. When we give him what he needs, he generally supports us 9 out of 10 times."
It would appear that Spector not only will betray anyone when it becomes convenient, but that his position and vote on important matters can be bought by special interests like the unions.
When I was a young boy growing up in rural New Hampshire back in the '50's, we had a name for people like Specter...
Weasel.
/
In one particular instance, the disdain is so grand that it is a wonder the politician at the heart of it could get elected dog catcher. Yet, for 28 years the people of Pennsylvania have kept putting him in the Senate. His name - Arlen Specter.
Specter was a Democrat in 1965 when he won an election for Philadelphia district attorney on the Republican line -- so he then became a Republican. This should have been a tip-off that the man had few core principles, and therefore would have no problem betraying others if it would benefit him. Yet, the folks of Pennsylvania closed their eyes.
So it came as no surprise to me that on April 28, 2009, he switched parties yet again. He said polls showed his chances in a GOP primary rematch against conservative former congressman Pat Toomey were "bleak," so he was casting his lot with Democrats instead.
And once again he betrays those who supported him simply so he could remain in power. His ego, his own personal ambitions were more important to him than the country he was elected to serve. And make no mistake - Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents in serving the nation, not the state. Serving the state is the job of STATE legislators.
Another telling point that shows Specter's character (or lack thereof) lies in the fact that the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has endorsed him since 1998. Rick Bloomingdale, the group's incoming president, said this of Specter, "We know how to work with him. When we give him what he needs, he generally supports us 9 out of 10 times."
It would appear that Spector not only will betray anyone when it becomes convenient, but that his position and vote on important matters can be bought by special interests like the unions.
When I was a young boy growing up in rural New Hampshire back in the '50's, we had a name for people like Specter...
Weasel.
/
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
How To Reduce The Deficit
President Obama needs a committe to try and figure out how to increase taxes to pay down the ballooning deficit. But there is a better, simpler way, and does not require any more taxes. In fact, it could actually reduce taxes. Of course, that is precisely why Congress will never do this. They need to keep buying their seats.
Here is what I would do - tough medicine, but like any other medicine, once you get it down it's not so bad.
1) Take the $400 billion of the "stimulus money" not yet spent and put it back into the Treasury toward the deficit. It is a waste of taxpayer money and the cost is far too great
2) Any funds still not yet spent for "pork" projects should be returned to the Treasury and paid toward the deficit - roughly $80 billion. We do not need pork at this time, nor do we need to allow Congressmen to purchase votes in this way
3) Disallow any future pork projects - any project that is not for the good of the entire nation should not be getting paid for from income taxes. The guy in Maine should not have to pay for a skateboard park in Florida. That is a Florida project, not a federal one.
4) Reduce taxes on any small business that employs more than 10 persons, allowing them to hire at least one new worker for every 10 currently employed. New hires will put money into the economy, and tax $$$ into the Treasury.
5) Remove wasted entitlements. In 2010 welfare will cost $750 billion, of which more than half goes to unworthy recipients. Anyone receiving government assistance should be required to show that they are unable (not unwilling) to support themselves through no fault of thier own. Assistance should not be going to the lazy, or to drug dealers, or criminals just because they are poor. Poverty should not be the litmus test. The litmus test should be NEED caused by circumstances beyond their control. As the Bible says, waste not your seed upon barren ground, or thorny ground, or rocky ground. Sow your seed only on fertile soil. The $300+ billion returned to the Treasury EACH YEAR, and applied to the deficit.
These simple strategies would reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and $8 trillion over 10 years.
But like I said, our esteemed Congressional grifters would never do any of these things, because it does not allow them to buy votes, fatten their own wallets or provide negotiation chips for gaining greater personal power in Congress. Their own personal needs come before the welfare of the nation, and that is a shame.
/
Here is what I would do - tough medicine, but like any other medicine, once you get it down it's not so bad.
1) Take the $400 billion of the "stimulus money" not yet spent and put it back into the Treasury toward the deficit. It is a waste of taxpayer money and the cost is far too great
2) Any funds still not yet spent for "pork" projects should be returned to the Treasury and paid toward the deficit - roughly $80 billion. We do not need pork at this time, nor do we need to allow Congressmen to purchase votes in this way
3) Disallow any future pork projects - any project that is not for the good of the entire nation should not be getting paid for from income taxes. The guy in Maine should not have to pay for a skateboard park in Florida. That is a Florida project, not a federal one.
4) Reduce taxes on any small business that employs more than 10 persons, allowing them to hire at least one new worker for every 10 currently employed. New hires will put money into the economy, and tax $$$ into the Treasury.
5) Remove wasted entitlements. In 2010 welfare will cost $750 billion, of which more than half goes to unworthy recipients. Anyone receiving government assistance should be required to show that they are unable (not unwilling) to support themselves through no fault of thier own. Assistance should not be going to the lazy, or to drug dealers, or criminals just because they are poor. Poverty should not be the litmus test. The litmus test should be NEED caused by circumstances beyond their control. As the Bible says, waste not your seed upon barren ground, or thorny ground, or rocky ground. Sow your seed only on fertile soil. The $300+ billion returned to the Treasury EACH YEAR, and applied to the deficit.
These simple strategies would reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and $8 trillion over 10 years.
But like I said, our esteemed Congressional grifters would never do any of these things, because it does not allow them to buy votes, fatten their own wallets or provide negotiation chips for gaining greater personal power in Congress. Their own personal needs come before the welfare of the nation, and that is a shame.
/
Working On That "58 States"
During his campaign, Obama stated he had campaigned in 57 states with only one to go. It looks like he may be trying to build up to that.
Unless you watch Fox News, you will not hear about this, but on Thursday the Democrat Congress plans to hold a non-binding vote to admit Puerto Rico into statehood. This has been purposely kept out of the news.
So, what's the problem? And why now? Because Puerto Rico has 3,014,000 voting age citizens - more than enough to swing an election. And if the Dems hold this vote, it will show Puerto Ricans that Democrats are their friends and allies. And eventually, when Puerto Rico does become a state, the voters will be primarily Democrat.
But there is another reason - this vote will also be a show for latinos, to help galvanize the latino vote here in the states - and those that WILL be included when the Democrats give illegals amnesty. That, by itself, would equal a voting bloc of tens of millions. Democrats plan on making latinos dependent upon them just as they did with other minorities. It is the only way they can win elections.
In short, this non-binding vote is designed for one purpose - to help Democrats "fix" future elections. And I have a problem with fixing elections.
/
Unless you watch Fox News, you will not hear about this, but on Thursday the Democrat Congress plans to hold a non-binding vote to admit Puerto Rico into statehood. This has been purposely kept out of the news.
So, what's the problem? And why now? Because Puerto Rico has 3,014,000 voting age citizens - more than enough to swing an election. And if the Dems hold this vote, it will show Puerto Ricans that Democrats are their friends and allies. And eventually, when Puerto Rico does become a state, the voters will be primarily Democrat.
But there is another reason - this vote will also be a show for latinos, to help galvanize the latino vote here in the states - and those that WILL be included when the Democrats give illegals amnesty. That, by itself, would equal a voting bloc of tens of millions. Democrats plan on making latinos dependent upon them just as they did with other minorities. It is the only way they can win elections.
In short, this non-binding vote is designed for one purpose - to help Democrats "fix" future elections. And I have a problem with fixing elections.
/
Quiz
OK, so here is a little quiz question for you. Please think about it, and see what you come up with.
A powerful, older man whom we will call John has been married many years. He briefly meets a beautiful young woman whom we will call Margaret at a function, and also meets several other women at that function, none of which are quite as beautiful or young as the lovely Margaret.
A few days later, John calls Margaret on the phone. He talks with her about sports, marriage and a variety of other conversational topics.
The question is this: does it appear that John is just being benignly friendly to someone he hardly knows by calling her up on the phone just to pass the breeze, or is the older, married John hitting on the beautiful young Margaret?
Call me cynical, but as a happily married older man myself, I would never, ever under any circumstances make phone calls to young, beautiful women I hardly know, let alone do it just to pass the time.
Of course, by now you know I have something on my mind. This exact scenario did take place. The powerful older man was Vice President Joe Biden, who briefly met Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View". He later placed a personal call to her, and talked about things like football and marriage. It is interesting to note that he also briefly met Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg on that show, but he never attempted to call them.
Sounds to me like Ol' married Joe is on the make. And I hope Elizabeth is wise enough to run, not walk from any further contact with Joe. After all, overtures from a Vice President can be very flattering and could turn almost any gal's head.
/
A powerful, older man whom we will call John has been married many years. He briefly meets a beautiful young woman whom we will call Margaret at a function, and also meets several other women at that function, none of which are quite as beautiful or young as the lovely Margaret.
A few days later, John calls Margaret on the phone. He talks with her about sports, marriage and a variety of other conversational topics.
The question is this: does it appear that John is just being benignly friendly to someone he hardly knows by calling her up on the phone just to pass the breeze, or is the older, married John hitting on the beautiful young Margaret?
Call me cynical, but as a happily married older man myself, I would never, ever under any circumstances make phone calls to young, beautiful women I hardly know, let alone do it just to pass the time.
Of course, by now you know I have something on my mind. This exact scenario did take place. The powerful older man was Vice President Joe Biden, who briefly met Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View". He later placed a personal call to her, and talked about things like football and marriage. It is interesting to note that he also briefly met Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg on that show, but he never attempted to call them.
Sounds to me like Ol' married Joe is on the make. And I hope Elizabeth is wise enough to run, not walk from any further contact with Joe. After all, overtures from a Vice President can be very flattering and could turn almost any gal's head.
/
Monday, April 26, 2010
The "Other" Aliens
In the news this week, Stephen Hawkings, speaking up about his take on trying to contact alien civilizations in the cosmos, as many organizations are attempting to do.
According to Hawkings, any alien race advanced enough to reach Earth will likely not be friendly - chances are excellent they have already exhausted the resources of their own world and would only come here to rape our planet.
I disagree with that, but I do agree it would be a catastrophe to contact alien civilizations. First, if they can reach Earth, they can reach any place in the Universe. The universe is overflowing with resources, so they do not need the ones found here. But...
If they are so advanced as to be able to reach us, then we would be little more than a far inferior species, and they would likely view us as we view cattle. We would either be used as a food supply, or as slaves to help them gather resources and grow food for them. It would be much like the Egyptians and the Hebrews, only 100 times worse.
And lest we forget - we cannot even get along with other humans. Nations fight. Races fight. Ideologies fight. So what chance is there that we could get along with another race completely unlike anything we could ever imagine? No chance at all. There would be war. And their advanced superiority would assure that we would lose.
If you ask me, we should not be so anxious to contact other civilizations...their best-selling book may be "How To Serve The Human Race". And it just might be a cookbook.
/
According to Hawkings, any alien race advanced enough to reach Earth will likely not be friendly - chances are excellent they have already exhausted the resources of their own world and would only come here to rape our planet.
I disagree with that, but I do agree it would be a catastrophe to contact alien civilizations. First, if they can reach Earth, they can reach any place in the Universe. The universe is overflowing with resources, so they do not need the ones found here. But...
If they are so advanced as to be able to reach us, then we would be little more than a far inferior species, and they would likely view us as we view cattle. We would either be used as a food supply, or as slaves to help them gather resources and grow food for them. It would be much like the Egyptians and the Hebrews, only 100 times worse.
And lest we forget - we cannot even get along with other humans. Nations fight. Races fight. Ideologies fight. So what chance is there that we could get along with another race completely unlike anything we could ever imagine? No chance at all. There would be war. And their advanced superiority would assure that we would lose.
If you ask me, we should not be so anxious to contact other civilizations...their best-selling book may be "How To Serve The Human Race". And it just might be a cookbook.
/
Friday, April 23, 2010
The VAT Game
You have likely heard the rumors about the possibility of instituting a VAT (Value Added Tax) to everything manufactured. This tax would be in addition to the current income tax, and could double, even triple the tax burden of every American - and would even tax the poor.
The Congress and the Obama administration says they are "not considering it". That statement, alone, proves that they are or there would be no point in even bringing it up. And they also say that while not considering it, nothing is "off the table". So, they are considering it.
But they also know that a VAT would be the death knell for the Democrat party. If they were to pass it, it would be 5 generations before another Democrat ever made it to a position of power.
So why are they even talking about it? Gamesmanship.
They will not try to institute it before the mid-term elections, because that would insure a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress, which would defeat their real strategy. And that strategy is:
1) First and foremost, try to hang onto a majority in both houses, even though they realize it may only be a slim majority. With a majority...
2) They would then give serious consideration to a VAT, knowing full well that it will never pass. They do not intend for it to pass - yet. Republicans would kill any chance of it passing.
3) Growing deficits would hurt all Americans, and Democrats would point at the Republicans and say, "We tried to pay down those terrible deficits with a VAT, but the "party of no" shot it down. It's their fault" (they are counting on taking the conversation AWAY from the fact that THEY were the ones who CREATED those huge deficits in the first place).
So then we have Democrats looking like they tried to help America (out of the hole they dug), while making the Republicans the fall guys. Hopefully, this would be just enough to tilt public opinion toward getting Obama re-elected in 2012.
And, as a lame duck president with nothing to lose, he would go for broke, and before leaving office in 2016 we WILL have a VAT. And America, as we have known it for 225 years, will be gone forever.
IF it all goes as planned. IF Republicans do not take control of Congress in 2010. And IF the Democrats can change the direction of the conversation before 2012 and pin the blame for the growing deficits on the Republicans.
Frankly, I have hopes that most Americans are a bit smarter than the Democrats in power think they are.
And, no, I am not blaming "Democrats". In general, Democrats are good people. But the Democrats IN POWER are not such good people. They are vicious, opportunist progressives with an agenda to turn America into Europe.
And in case you have not looked lately, Europe has never been as strong, as rich or as great as America. So why would we want to be more like them?
/
The Congress and the Obama administration says they are "not considering it". That statement, alone, proves that they are or there would be no point in even bringing it up. And they also say that while not considering it, nothing is "off the table". So, they are considering it.
But they also know that a VAT would be the death knell for the Democrat party. If they were to pass it, it would be 5 generations before another Democrat ever made it to a position of power.
So why are they even talking about it? Gamesmanship.
They will not try to institute it before the mid-term elections, because that would insure a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress, which would defeat their real strategy. And that strategy is:
1) First and foremost, try to hang onto a majority in both houses, even though they realize it may only be a slim majority. With a majority...
2) They would then give serious consideration to a VAT, knowing full well that it will never pass. They do not intend for it to pass - yet. Republicans would kill any chance of it passing.
3) Growing deficits would hurt all Americans, and Democrats would point at the Republicans and say, "We tried to pay down those terrible deficits with a VAT, but the "party of no" shot it down. It's their fault" (they are counting on taking the conversation AWAY from the fact that THEY were the ones who CREATED those huge deficits in the first place).
So then we have Democrats looking like they tried to help America (out of the hole they dug), while making the Republicans the fall guys. Hopefully, this would be just enough to tilt public opinion toward getting Obama re-elected in 2012.
And, as a lame duck president with nothing to lose, he would go for broke, and before leaving office in 2016 we WILL have a VAT. And America, as we have known it for 225 years, will be gone forever.
IF it all goes as planned. IF Republicans do not take control of Congress in 2010. And IF the Democrats can change the direction of the conversation before 2012 and pin the blame for the growing deficits on the Republicans.
Frankly, I have hopes that most Americans are a bit smarter than the Democrats in power think they are.
And, no, I am not blaming "Democrats". In general, Democrats are good people. But the Democrats IN POWER are not such good people. They are vicious, opportunist progressives with an agenda to turn America into Europe.
And in case you have not looked lately, Europe has never been as strong, as rich or as great as America. So why would we want to be more like them?
/
Friday, April 16, 2010
Speaking Of Elitist Media...
On CBS Money Watch today they had "experts" telling folks what they should consider using their tax refunds for.
Bear in mind - as a rule, only the lower income and lower middle class would receive a refund.
Yet these "experts" at CBS suggest the folks use their refunds for the following:
A $2700 bicycle, to keep fit
Take classes at a golf school
Put it in a Roth IRA
Buy $170 a bottle champagne
Donate the money to some fave charity
There were other suggestions, ALL of which were absolutely ridiculous, except for one: one woman said she would put the cash where Obama couldn't get his hands on it.
All this goes to further prove that the elitist media are so far out of touch with the real world that any information or "news" from them is unlikely to have any value. They simply are not familiar with real life on planet Earth. They think Madison Avenue and Broadway are typical of streets throughout the country. And when they are confronted by a real person with real values, they call him a "throwback", or some other derogatory term, as they have done with the Tea Partiers.
So here is MY suggestion for THEM - stop writing, stop reporting, stop printing until you take the time to discover real life outside of your cushy little Ivory Tower bubbles.
/
Bear in mind - as a rule, only the lower income and lower middle class would receive a refund.
Yet these "experts" at CBS suggest the folks use their refunds for the following:
A $2700 bicycle, to keep fit
Take classes at a golf school
Put it in a Roth IRA
Buy $170 a bottle champagne
Donate the money to some fave charity
There were other suggestions, ALL of which were absolutely ridiculous, except for one: one woman said she would put the cash where Obama couldn't get his hands on it.
All this goes to further prove that the elitist media are so far out of touch with the real world that any information or "news" from them is unlikely to have any value. They simply are not familiar with real life on planet Earth. They think Madison Avenue and Broadway are typical of streets throughout the country. And when they are confronted by a real person with real values, they call him a "throwback", or some other derogatory term, as they have done with the Tea Partiers.
So here is MY suggestion for THEM - stop writing, stop reporting, stop printing until you take the time to discover real life outside of your cushy little Ivory Tower bubbles.
/
Proof of The Corrupt Media
Educated, informed folks understand that with few exceptions the media have become corrupt. And now we have absolute proof that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, Time, New Yorker and Newsweek - just to name a few - are intentionally corrupt and providing misleading information to the public.
For over a year, these lamestream media have been reporting that the Tea Partiers are basically uneducated people, and mostly senior citizens from the lower classes. And much of the public ate it up.
But a recent poll, done by the New York Times came up with stats that took them - but not Fox News viewers - by surprise:
Most Tea Partiers are better educated than average Americans, with a majority having college educations and even post grads. The majority earn more money than the average American, with many having incomes over $100K. And the majority are middle-aged, but there are members from every age group and every race.
So, it would seem the media was wrong, and has intentionally fostered lies for the express purpose of beefing up their own liberal agenda.
The following posts are unedited and taken from news blogs on the Internet, all showing that the people - mostly liberals (the only people who get their news from the lamestream media) - have been duped by the media:
Jlmc Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:50 pm PDT
I guarantee you, 95 % of the teapartiers accept some form of gov. assistance.
Brian Sat Mar 27, 2010 06:44 am PDT
What I find most interesting about the Tea Partiers is that most of them do not make over $250.
barztool Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:53 am PDT
I'm a liberal...I have worked full time since I graduated from high school....I pay taxes. From what I see, the majority of the teahaggers are retirees who are probably getting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
xcustomer Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:53 am PDT
Thats why tea partiers are so upset scared they will cut back on the medicaid and food stamps. Hard to run a trailer park without that.
Chris Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:20 am PDT
Teabaggers are welfare cheese eaters
jimc unless the tea party lives between the cracks that number is 100% have government assistance
_____
As you can see, the liberals are not only 100% uninformed, but also tend to be nasty, and dependent upon smears and slurs rather than facts.
It's time America stood up to the media and forced them, through boycotting and refusing to patronize their advertisers, into presenting OBJECTIVE, TRUTHFUL news instead of simply spinning the truth out of shape for political gain. Freedom of the Press was a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution because the press was seen as a check on government. The Founders would be shocked to discover the press has been caught in bed with government.
/
For over a year, these lamestream media have been reporting that the Tea Partiers are basically uneducated people, and mostly senior citizens from the lower classes. And much of the public ate it up.
But a recent poll, done by the New York Times came up with stats that took them - but not Fox News viewers - by surprise:
Most Tea Partiers are better educated than average Americans, with a majority having college educations and even post grads. The majority earn more money than the average American, with many having incomes over $100K. And the majority are middle-aged, but there are members from every age group and every race.
So, it would seem the media was wrong, and has intentionally fostered lies for the express purpose of beefing up their own liberal agenda.
The following posts are unedited and taken from news blogs on the Internet, all showing that the people - mostly liberals (the only people who get their news from the lamestream media) - have been duped by the media:
Jlmc Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:50 pm PDT
I guarantee you, 95 % of the teapartiers accept some form of gov. assistance.
Brian Sat Mar 27, 2010 06:44 am PDT
What I find most interesting about the Tea Partiers is that most of them do not make over $250.
barztool Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:53 am PDT
I'm a liberal...I have worked full time since I graduated from high school....I pay taxes. From what I see, the majority of the teahaggers are retirees who are probably getting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
xcustomer Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:53 am PDT
Thats why tea partiers are so upset scared they will cut back on the medicaid and food stamps. Hard to run a trailer park without that.
Chris Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:20 am PDT
Teabaggers are welfare cheese eaters
jimc unless the tea party lives between the cracks that number is 100% have government assistance
_____
As you can see, the liberals are not only 100% uninformed, but also tend to be nasty, and dependent upon smears and slurs rather than facts.
It's time America stood up to the media and forced them, through boycotting and refusing to patronize their advertisers, into presenting OBJECTIVE, TRUTHFUL news instead of simply spinning the truth out of shape for political gain. Freedom of the Press was a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution because the press was seen as a check on government. The Founders would be shocked to discover the press has been caught in bed with government.
/
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Amazing! Really
As we travel through life, every now and again we run into something amazing. But this goes beyond being merely amazing. You really should watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=rmm-0-Rdxo8
/
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=rmm-0-Rdxo8
/
Monday, April 12, 2010
Where Does YOUR Tax Money Go?
It's pretty hard to comprehend billions, even trillions of dollars and how that relates to our own family. But now there is a Taxpayer Calculator available that can show you how much of your money goes where. For example, for someone earning $50,000 a year, their share of the Stimulus Bill is $3,783.26. Do you think you would have spent $3800 of your own money for what little you got out of it?
To find out how much of your taxes go for a variety of things, check it out at www.foxnews.com/yourmoney. That is where the calculator is. Simply type in your income and watch where YOUR tax dollars go.
Here is an interesting poll - when asked if taxes are too high, about right or too low, the results were:
Too High: 53%
About Right: 46%
Too Low: 2%
The reason this poll is so interesting - according to the IRS, 48% of the folks do not pay ANY taxes. And this poll shows that 48% of the folks have no problem with tax rates.
DUH! I would not have a problem with them, either, if I wasn't paying any.
/
To find out how much of your taxes go for a variety of things, check it out at www.foxnews.com/yourmoney. That is where the calculator is. Simply type in your income and watch where YOUR tax dollars go.
Here is an interesting poll - when asked if taxes are too high, about right or too low, the results were:
Too High: 53%
About Right: 46%
Too Low: 2%
The reason this poll is so interesting - according to the IRS, 48% of the folks do not pay ANY taxes. And this poll shows that 48% of the folks have no problem with tax rates.
DUH! I would not have a problem with them, either, if I wasn't paying any.
/
They Are At It Again - Crashing The Tea Parties
There is a website, http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/ that enlists and encourages progressive liberals who oppose the tenets of the Tea Party (smaller government, less taxes, more personal freedoms) and get them to attend Tea Parties with the express agenda of disrupting, and even making it appear that Tea Partiers are racists, nuts and illiterates. You can check the site yourself, to see that these Marxists, in the truest form of Saul Alinsky Marxism plan to do whatever they can to discredit the tea partiers with their deceptions.
They will infiltrate a party, and then raise racist signs, and signs misspelled. They will yell racist epithets. They will act inappropriately, perhaps even violently, all in an attempt to get the lamestream media to point out the bad behavior of the Marxists and say, "Look, we told you the Tea Partiers were nutty, illiterate, violent racists."
And people who are not informed may believe it.
But now you are among the informed. If you hear of a "tea partier" who is acting racist or inappropriately, you can bet it is not a tea partier at all, as they are taking great care to behave well, simply because they know they are being targeted by the lamestream media and the current White House administration.
Once more, progressive liberals are showing their true colors of insidious deception. They simply cannot argue the merits of their beliefs, so they resort to lies and deception. Don't take my word for it - check out the site yourself. They are actually proud of being liars and deceivers. Last time I checked, no true, patriotic American would ever be proud of that sort of thing.
It matters not if you like or dislike the Tea Party. But one thing that certainly does matter is whether or not the discussion and debate is honest and forthright. The liberals obviously have no use for any honest debate.
/
They will infiltrate a party, and then raise racist signs, and signs misspelled. They will yell racist epithets. They will act inappropriately, perhaps even violently, all in an attempt to get the lamestream media to point out the bad behavior of the Marxists and say, "Look, we told you the Tea Partiers were nutty, illiterate, violent racists."
And people who are not informed may believe it.
But now you are among the informed. If you hear of a "tea partier" who is acting racist or inappropriately, you can bet it is not a tea partier at all, as they are taking great care to behave well, simply because they know they are being targeted by the lamestream media and the current White House administration.
Once more, progressive liberals are showing their true colors of insidious deception. They simply cannot argue the merits of their beliefs, so they resort to lies and deception. Don't take my word for it - check out the site yourself. They are actually proud of being liars and deceivers. Last time I checked, no true, patriotic American would ever be proud of that sort of thing.
It matters not if you like or dislike the Tea Party. But one thing that certainly does matter is whether or not the discussion and debate is honest and forthright. The liberals obviously have no use for any honest debate.
/
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What Is The Task Of SCOTUS?
Barak Obama stated that he would be "putting huge emphasis on a justice who would bring a fight-for-the-little-guy sensibility to the job" in his nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
Pardon me for mentioning this, but that is NOT their job, and for someone who claims to be a Constitutional scholar, Obama does not seem to understand the Constitution at all - or holds it in contempt. Their job is to make sure that the Constitution is upheld, REGARDLESS of whether or not it helps "the little guy", or anyone else.
When did people begin to believe the job of the Supreme Court is to establish their idea of social justice? READ the Constitution, people - their job description is laid out and made clear, and it does NOT include activism on behalf of ANYONE. When a justice "fights for the little guy", he is using the law to discriminate AGAINST everyone else. Their job is to make sure the laws treat everyone - great and small - equally.
Liberals do not like that - they want the "little guy" to get preferential treatment. Hence, their push for welfare, Health Care, and all other social programs. If they want to do that, fine - do it legally. But do not try to do it through activist Justices who hold the Constitution in contempt. If liberals do not like what the Constitution says, then there is a process for changing it, called "amending".
By offering any type of preferential treatment to any segment of society, all other segments become lesser, and do not have the same protections of law. That is in direct violation of the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment.
It is not for the courts to establish "social justice". It is their job to insure that everyone receives equal treatment under any Constitutional law. Beyond that, "social justice" becomes the province of the churches and the people.
/
Pardon me for mentioning this, but that is NOT their job, and for someone who claims to be a Constitutional scholar, Obama does not seem to understand the Constitution at all - or holds it in contempt. Their job is to make sure that the Constitution is upheld, REGARDLESS of whether or not it helps "the little guy", or anyone else.
When did people begin to believe the job of the Supreme Court is to establish their idea of social justice? READ the Constitution, people - their job description is laid out and made clear, and it does NOT include activism on behalf of ANYONE. When a justice "fights for the little guy", he is using the law to discriminate AGAINST everyone else. Their job is to make sure the laws treat everyone - great and small - equally.
Liberals do not like that - they want the "little guy" to get preferential treatment. Hence, their push for welfare, Health Care, and all other social programs. If they want to do that, fine - do it legally. But do not try to do it through activist Justices who hold the Constitution in contempt. If liberals do not like what the Constitution says, then there is a process for changing it, called "amending".
By offering any type of preferential treatment to any segment of society, all other segments become lesser, and do not have the same protections of law. That is in direct violation of the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment.
It is not for the courts to establish "social justice". It is their job to insure that everyone receives equal treatment under any Constitutional law. Beyond that, "social justice" becomes the province of the churches and the people.
/
Rural Areas Could Lose Their Doctors
The Health Care bill, now law, could deprive rural areas of the country of their doctors. How so?
The law includes a section that gives the government the power and authority to conscript (draft) up to 6000 doctors, forcing them into servitude to the government, at the pay rate that Medicare allows. Those doctors will be forced to serve at the pleasure of the government, where the government directs. This will reduce or eliminate rural doctors in two ways:
1) the government will direct conscripted doctors to work where the need is greatest - in the cities, and
2) Rural doctors will abandon rural areas because, as the only doctor likely to live in that area, he is the only target when the feds come looking for doctors to bring to the cities.
If rural doctors move to metro areas, there is only a 1 in 40 chance of being conscripted because of all the other doctors in the area. If they stay in the rural area, the chances of being conscripted are almost 100%.
So, rural doctors that do not voluntarily leave when the conscription begins will likely be forcibly removed.
Now I wonder why the liberals never mentioned this part about forcing up to 6000 doctors into government service...
Probably for the same reason they did not tell you what is on pages 148-149. If you have read the law, you will know that is where the government panel can determine what care you do or do not get based on your age, condition and importance, and that their decision is final - there is no appeal.
In fact, there are roughly 2600 pages in the law that the liberals purposely kept hidden from the public until it was too late to dissect. I wonder what other nasty surprises are in store for "free America". Stay tuned...
/
The law includes a section that gives the government the power and authority to conscript (draft) up to 6000 doctors, forcing them into servitude to the government, at the pay rate that Medicare allows. Those doctors will be forced to serve at the pleasure of the government, where the government directs. This will reduce or eliminate rural doctors in two ways:
1) the government will direct conscripted doctors to work where the need is greatest - in the cities, and
2) Rural doctors will abandon rural areas because, as the only doctor likely to live in that area, he is the only target when the feds come looking for doctors to bring to the cities.
If rural doctors move to metro areas, there is only a 1 in 40 chance of being conscripted because of all the other doctors in the area. If they stay in the rural area, the chances of being conscripted are almost 100%.
So, rural doctors that do not voluntarily leave when the conscription begins will likely be forcibly removed.
Now I wonder why the liberals never mentioned this part about forcing up to 6000 doctors into government service...
Probably for the same reason they did not tell you what is on pages 148-149. If you have read the law, you will know that is where the government panel can determine what care you do or do not get based on your age, condition and importance, and that their decision is final - there is no appeal.
In fact, there are roughly 2600 pages in the law that the liberals purposely kept hidden from the public until it was too late to dissect. I wonder what other nasty surprises are in store for "free America". Stay tuned...
/
The Liberal Plan
I have spoken with many folks about the administration's plan to push through a lot of socialist programs like Cap & Trade, Health Care etc. that will greatly increase taxes. And most of those folks, being uninformed, simply say, "The taxpayers will never let them get away with that."
So, let's take a peek at that response. The "taxpayers."
According to the IRS, only half of all families now pay any tax at all. That means half of the folks really do not care if taxes go through the roof, and may even want that to happen so they can reap even more socialist benefits. The people who do NOT pay taxes are the ones who get to collect all the goodies.
That's right - fully half of all Americans are getting a free ride at the expense of the other half. So, why would they not want Cap & Trade? Health Care? Or a host of other social programs they will never be asked to pay for? After all, if you could go grocery shopping and when you get to the check-out you could use your neighbor's credit card, why not? Wouldn't you fill your cart more than ever?
But it gets even worse. Of the half who do pay taxes, 40% of those work in the government at some level - local, state or federal. So, they are paying their taxes with taxpayer funds.
This means that only 30% or fewer are actually paying into the system from the private sector.
Listen up, folks - less than one-third of all Americans have any reason left to care about taxes.
The socialists in America (and now in power) intend to place so many people on the "taking" end of things that those on the "giving" end will be outnumbered when the time comes to vote. And just how many folks can be expected to vote FOR capitalism and free enterprize when they are benefitting from socialism? Who will bite the hand that feeds them? (This is also why liberals support welfare - more people on the taking end who will not vote for any reform.)
We can hope Americans will stand up for what is right, even if it hurts.
But don't count on it - Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressives in government aren't counting on it.
/
So, let's take a peek at that response. The "taxpayers."
According to the IRS, only half of all families now pay any tax at all. That means half of the folks really do not care if taxes go through the roof, and may even want that to happen so they can reap even more socialist benefits. The people who do NOT pay taxes are the ones who get to collect all the goodies.
That's right - fully half of all Americans are getting a free ride at the expense of the other half. So, why would they not want Cap & Trade? Health Care? Or a host of other social programs they will never be asked to pay for? After all, if you could go grocery shopping and when you get to the check-out you could use your neighbor's credit card, why not? Wouldn't you fill your cart more than ever?
But it gets even worse. Of the half who do pay taxes, 40% of those work in the government at some level - local, state or federal. So, they are paying their taxes with taxpayer funds.
This means that only 30% or fewer are actually paying into the system from the private sector.
Listen up, folks - less than one-third of all Americans have any reason left to care about taxes.
The socialists in America (and now in power) intend to place so many people on the "taking" end of things that those on the "giving" end will be outnumbered when the time comes to vote. And just how many folks can be expected to vote FOR capitalism and free enterprize when they are benefitting from socialism? Who will bite the hand that feeds them? (This is also why liberals support welfare - more people on the taking end who will not vote for any reform.)
We can hope Americans will stand up for what is right, even if it hurts.
But don't count on it - Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressives in government aren't counting on it.
/
Friday, April 9, 2010
Civics
There is much concern these days that government - our Congressmen - no longer represent the people, and in many cases do not even seem to know anything about the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Recent studies by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute indicate the reason could be tied directly to students not being taught even basic civics - in school or college. They simply do not have any knowledge of how our government is supposed to work.
When I went to school, Civics was a required course in the 9th grade. Now it appears you can graduate from Harvard and Yale without knowing the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), or what the three "inalienable rights" are in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). And most students are not even aware that America is a Republic, not a Democracy.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has tried to measure how well colleges and universities do in giving their students a basic understanding of America's core history, key texts, and enduring political and economic institutions.
Half of the 14,000 incoming freshmen tested failed the 60-question multiple-choice test, getting just half the questions right. Worse, they barely know any more when they graduate, with seniors scoring 54 percent correct. No school, not even Harvard or Yale, got above a 69 percent average among seniors. Worse still, in some schools - the most liberal, elitist universities - students actually did worse coming out than going in, as if liberal schools were actively trying to REMOVE any true understanding of how government works. Perhaps so they can more easily push their liberal agenda.
"Prestige" doesn't necessarily guarantee quality and excellence. In fact, most of the schools on the losing side were in the elite category, including Harcard and Yale. And while schools like Johns Hopkins do a better job attracting smarter students, when it comes to actually doing the job that colleges are paid to do -- promoting learning -- little schools like Rhodes College and Murray State leave them in the dust. Clearly, exorbitant tuitions don't guarantee a curricula that ensures that students learn the basics about American history and government.
Finally, parents and taxpayers who pay the bills of American higher education need to start holding colleges accountable for the actual outputs of their academic programming and, if necessary, start demanding more transparency in terms of what is taught on their campuses. And we should insist on a strong civics curriculum.
How can we expect to have a government that serves the people if our future leaders have no concept of how the government is supposed to work? Or what powers the Constitution gives to it? Or even the rights it guarantees the people?
Recent studies by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute indicate the reason could be tied directly to students not being taught even basic civics - in school or college. They simply do not have any knowledge of how our government is supposed to work.
When I went to school, Civics was a required course in the 9th grade. Now it appears you can graduate from Harvard and Yale without knowing the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), or what the three "inalienable rights" are in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). And most students are not even aware that America is a Republic, not a Democracy.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has tried to measure how well colleges and universities do in giving their students a basic understanding of America's core history, key texts, and enduring political and economic institutions.
Half of the 14,000 incoming freshmen tested failed the 60-question multiple-choice test, getting just half the questions right. Worse, they barely know any more when they graduate, with seniors scoring 54 percent correct. No school, not even Harvard or Yale, got above a 69 percent average among seniors. Worse still, in some schools - the most liberal, elitist universities - students actually did worse coming out than going in, as if liberal schools were actively trying to REMOVE any true understanding of how government works. Perhaps so they can more easily push their liberal agenda.
"Prestige" doesn't necessarily guarantee quality and excellence. In fact, most of the schools on the losing side were in the elite category, including Harcard and Yale. And while schools like Johns Hopkins do a better job attracting smarter students, when it comes to actually doing the job that colleges are paid to do -- promoting learning -- little schools like Rhodes College and Murray State leave them in the dust. Clearly, exorbitant tuitions don't guarantee a curricula that ensures that students learn the basics about American history and government.
Finally, parents and taxpayers who pay the bills of American higher education need to start holding colleges accountable for the actual outputs of their academic programming and, if necessary, start demanding more transparency in terms of what is taught on their campuses. And we should insist on a strong civics curriculum.
How can we expect to have a government that serves the people if our future leaders have no concept of how the government is supposed to work? Or what powers the Constitution gives to it? Or even the rights it guarantees the people?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Drawing The Line
In a discussion with a pro-abortion individual, he stated that it was the responsibility of the government to pay for abortions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, because the woman had been wronged - it was not her fault.
I agree it was not her fault. But it was not my fault, either, so if she does not have to pay for it, why should I?
I asked this fellow if a person who gets robbed should be reimbursed with taxpayer money, because he had been wronged. Should we be on the hook to make it right? Or if a man gets killed in a drug war - should his wife be able to collect tax money to pay her for her loss?
Where does our responsibility end? According to liberals, there is no end - we should be forced to give up everything, if necessary, to right any and all "social injustice". As proof, look at those collecting welfare. It matters not who or what they are - the only criterion is that they are poor. A poor child rapist; a poor drug dealer; a poor murderer - they can all collect welfare. Liberals consider it "social justice".
But what about the social injustice of taking away what I earned to support my family?
Here is my point - we, the people, may choose to help whomever we choose to help. It is not the job of the government to force us to support anyone or anything that we find offensive. If I would not give money to a child molester so he can buy food, then I do not want the government giving him my money, either. If he wants food, let him take time out from molesting kids to get a job and buy his own food.
If a woman gets pregnant from rape or incest, let the person her got her pregnant pay for any abortion. Not me. That would make me a party to something that offends my God. Let the liberals pay for her abortion, since they don't seem to have a problem with that.
The government could set up a special fund, like they do for political contributions. Anyone who wants to contribute for abortions may do so, and the government can use THOSE funds only to pay for abortions. Liberals can contribute as much as they want. That solves the problem. Except...
The fund would be empty. None of the liberals would contribute. While they are all too willing to spend other people's money, they are slow to give up any of there own. Study after study proves that conservatives give roughly three times more for charity than liberals.
So, despite their desire to provide abortion money, they don't want it coming from THEIR pocket.
/
I agree it was not her fault. But it was not my fault, either, so if she does not have to pay for it, why should I?
I asked this fellow if a person who gets robbed should be reimbursed with taxpayer money, because he had been wronged. Should we be on the hook to make it right? Or if a man gets killed in a drug war - should his wife be able to collect tax money to pay her for her loss?
Where does our responsibility end? According to liberals, there is no end - we should be forced to give up everything, if necessary, to right any and all "social injustice". As proof, look at those collecting welfare. It matters not who or what they are - the only criterion is that they are poor. A poor child rapist; a poor drug dealer; a poor murderer - they can all collect welfare. Liberals consider it "social justice".
But what about the social injustice of taking away what I earned to support my family?
Here is my point - we, the people, may choose to help whomever we choose to help. It is not the job of the government to force us to support anyone or anything that we find offensive. If I would not give money to a child molester so he can buy food, then I do not want the government giving him my money, either. If he wants food, let him take time out from molesting kids to get a job and buy his own food.
If a woman gets pregnant from rape or incest, let the person her got her pregnant pay for any abortion. Not me. That would make me a party to something that offends my God. Let the liberals pay for her abortion, since they don't seem to have a problem with that.
The government could set up a special fund, like they do for political contributions. Anyone who wants to contribute for abortions may do so, and the government can use THOSE funds only to pay for abortions. Liberals can contribute as much as they want. That solves the problem. Except...
The fund would be empty. None of the liberals would contribute. While they are all too willing to spend other people's money, they are slow to give up any of there own. Study after study proves that conservatives give roughly three times more for charity than liberals.
So, despite their desire to provide abortion money, they don't want it coming from THEIR pocket.
/
Anti-Government? Don't Cut Your Own Throat
There are a lot of folks who, because they are frustrated with the government, are choosing to not reply to the 2010 Census. Whereas it is primarily conservatives who are angry with government, there is a very real possibility that conservatives could actually lose seats in Congress for the next 10 years if they do not send their Census forms in. The census tells the government how many congressional seats a state shall have. If enough people respond, a state could get more seats - and if it is conservatives responding, they will be conservative seats.
If a lot of conservatives fail to respond to the census, it could cost them conservative seats in Congress, assuring a liberal control for years to come.
Don't let that happen - stand up and be counted. But do not think for a moment that I am advocating you answer ALL the questions - that is not necessary. All you need to answer in order to fulfill your duty and to insure you are represented in Congress is to answer the first question - how many people live at your address? That's it.
Regardless of how much or how little info you provide, it is imperative that you do answer at least the first question and return the form.
Do not let it be your fault that liberals control Congress for the next ten years. Congress should fairly represent the people. To do that, they have to know you exist.
/
If a lot of conservatives fail to respond to the census, it could cost them conservative seats in Congress, assuring a liberal control for years to come.
Don't let that happen - stand up and be counted. But do not think for a moment that I am advocating you answer ALL the questions - that is not necessary. All you need to answer in order to fulfill your duty and to insure you are represented in Congress is to answer the first question - how many people live at your address? That's it.
Regardless of how much or how little info you provide, it is imperative that you do answer at least the first question and return the form.
Do not let it be your fault that liberals control Congress for the next ten years. Congress should fairly represent the people. To do that, they have to know you exist.
/
Monday, April 5, 2010
Who's Who on Social Security
Feel free to check out these FACTS at Snopes or FactCheck. Regardless of which party you belong to, facts are facts.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. It is no longer voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 7.65% of most all income, and if you are self-employed it is 15.3%
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can now be taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: Democrats. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Democrats. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take yourSocial Security away!
And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens - and almost all Democrats - believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
/
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. It is no longer voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 7.65% of most all income, and if you are self-employed it is 15.3%
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can now be taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: Democrats. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Democrats. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take yourSocial Security away!
And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens - and almost all Democrats - believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
/
How Did Conway Get To Be AG?
Jack Conway, Democrat Kentucky AG who is running for the Senate has some interesting concepts of the Constitution. For one, he says he concurs with the following quote:
"My copy of the Constitution doesn't have an individual right not to be insured. If you don't sign up for insurance, then you're going to be some kind of drag on the system."
Those are the words of Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and now a Harvard constitutional law professor. That he is a professor at the ultra-liberal Harvard University says it all.
Pardon me for mentioning something so blatantly obvious to most folks, but my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not be UNINSURED, either. In fact, my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not do a whole lotta things. You see, Mr. Conway, the Constitution was not written to tell us what we the People cannot do. It was written to tell the government what it can and cannot do. And in Article 1 Section 8 it enumerates exactly what powers Congress has, and the 10th Amendment clearly states the Congress may NOT assume any further powers not specifically granted to it. And nowhere, Mr Conway, is Congress SPECIFICALLY granted the power to force any citizen to buy anything, nor to punish him for failing to do so.
Conway goes on to say they are also the sentiments of most constitutional law experts who have examined the question of the constitutionality of the new health care reform legislation. But that is blatantly untrue. Most Constitutional scholars with no political axe to grind all agree that the Health Care law is unconstitutional on several grounds.
Conway goes on to prove his ignorance by stating "advocates of these meritless lawsuits advance three primary claims: 1) the individual requirement is unconstitutional; 2) the requirement upon the states is "commandeering" in violation of the 10th Amendment; and 3) it results in an unfunded mandate through Medicaid to the states. These rhetorical arguments are without merit."
They are neither rhetorical nor without merit. Again, I would mention that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given any power to issue a mandate to buy a product, not even under the "commerce clause." After all, if I choose to NOT buy insurance, how does that constitute commerce? It does not. If I sit in my room and do nothing, I am not engaged in commerce and cannot be regulated under the commerce clause.
As for the requirement to commandeer the states, that is specifically addressed in the 10th Amendment. In fact, Conway states, "If states decide not to form exchanges, the federal Health and Human Services department will set up exchanges for them." If that is not commandeering, Mr. Conway, then I don't know what is. Each state is soveriegn, and has rights of sovereignty, though liberals do not like to admit it. And the 10th Amendment states that any powers not granted to Congress shall belong to the states, and to the people respectively. For the government to declare that they can come to a state, and without the state's permission set up insurance exchanges is a violation of state sovereignty.
And as for his absurd assertion that forcing the states to pony up billions more for additional Medicare is not an unfunded mandate, by definition it is an unfunded mandate, which the Supreme court has already determined to be unconstitutional. The Health Care bill only covers those extra costs for a couple of years - after that, states must fund it.
I do not know how someone so illiterate as far as the Constitution is concerned ever became a State AG. But I can tell you that he has absolutely disqualified himself as a viable candidate for the Senate.
Simple facts: non-commerce cannot be regulated as commerce; the government cannot pass unfunded mandates; and Congress has no right to force any citizen to buy a product he does not want - it's all about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the right to exercise our free will and conscience.
/
"My copy of the Constitution doesn't have an individual right not to be insured. If you don't sign up for insurance, then you're going to be some kind of drag on the system."
Those are the words of Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and now a Harvard constitutional law professor. That he is a professor at the ultra-liberal Harvard University says it all.
Pardon me for mentioning something so blatantly obvious to most folks, but my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not be UNINSURED, either. In fact, my copy of the Constitution does not have an individual right to not do a whole lotta things. You see, Mr. Conway, the Constitution was not written to tell us what we the People cannot do. It was written to tell the government what it can and cannot do. And in Article 1 Section 8 it enumerates exactly what powers Congress has, and the 10th Amendment clearly states the Congress may NOT assume any further powers not specifically granted to it. And nowhere, Mr Conway, is Congress SPECIFICALLY granted the power to force any citizen to buy anything, nor to punish him for failing to do so.
Conway goes on to say they are also the sentiments of most constitutional law experts who have examined the question of the constitutionality of the new health care reform legislation. But that is blatantly untrue. Most Constitutional scholars with no political axe to grind all agree that the Health Care law is unconstitutional on several grounds.
Conway goes on to prove his ignorance by stating "advocates of these meritless lawsuits advance three primary claims: 1) the individual requirement is unconstitutional; 2) the requirement upon the states is "commandeering" in violation of the 10th Amendment; and 3) it results in an unfunded mandate through Medicaid to the states. These rhetorical arguments are without merit."
They are neither rhetorical nor without merit. Again, I would mention that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given any power to issue a mandate to buy a product, not even under the "commerce clause." After all, if I choose to NOT buy insurance, how does that constitute commerce? It does not. If I sit in my room and do nothing, I am not engaged in commerce and cannot be regulated under the commerce clause.
As for the requirement to commandeer the states, that is specifically addressed in the 10th Amendment. In fact, Conway states, "If states decide not to form exchanges, the federal Health and Human Services department will set up exchanges for them." If that is not commandeering, Mr. Conway, then I don't know what is. Each state is soveriegn, and has rights of sovereignty, though liberals do not like to admit it. And the 10th Amendment states that any powers not granted to Congress shall belong to the states, and to the people respectively. For the government to declare that they can come to a state, and without the state's permission set up insurance exchanges is a violation of state sovereignty.
And as for his absurd assertion that forcing the states to pony up billions more for additional Medicare is not an unfunded mandate, by definition it is an unfunded mandate, which the Supreme court has already determined to be unconstitutional. The Health Care bill only covers those extra costs for a couple of years - after that, states must fund it.
I do not know how someone so illiterate as far as the Constitution is concerned ever became a State AG. But I can tell you that he has absolutely disqualified himself as a viable candidate for the Senate.
Simple facts: non-commerce cannot be regulated as commerce; the government cannot pass unfunded mandates; and Congress has no right to force any citizen to buy a product he does not want - it's all about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and the right to exercise our free will and conscience.
/
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Turning Fiction Into Fact
Around the world there are "experts" and pseudo-experts all of whom try to prove how great and smart they are. In many cases, they need to manipulate data - and the people - to make their theories more plausible. In fact, they will take their pet theory, then keep trying to tell you it is a fact. They figure if they tell the lie often enough, you will believe it and it will become truth.
One of the most recent examples is Global Warming, but I have had my say on that, many times over the years (most of which seems to be getting borne out, insofar as Global Warming is not what the "experts" have been telling us).
But there are other areas, as well. One of the most flagrant examples of pushing fiction so hard that it becomes fact in the minds of the less educated masses is evolution.
In the 150 years since Darwin espoused his theory, no evidence of any kind has ever come to light to prove out the theory. None. That is rather astounding, considering all the fossils, all the reasearch and all the YEARS science has been working on proving it. Yet, in all that time, nothing. Not one, single, solitary piece of proof. In 150 years of putting modern science to the task, you would think they would have come up with something.
So, it remains only a theory, unproven by any evidence whatever.
But every time some scientist makes a discovery, like the 2 million year old skeleton just found, they, and writers around the globe tout it as "proof" of evolution, or even worse, write their fiction in ways that lead readers to believe evolution was proved long ago and is already indisputed fact. It is not.
Here is an egregious example of the disingenuous hype that science puts out there, aimed at making us believe a theory is really a fact when it is not. These excerpts come from a news article concerning the skeleton I mentioned previously.
"The missing link between humans and their ape-like predecessors could be filled in this week with the unveiling of a 2 million-year-old skeleton believed to be that of a new species of evolutionary primate"
The article starts out by assuming evolution to be true. And it makes the reader subconsciously believe it to be fact. The very next paragraph tries to instill the belief in evolution even more deeply:
" The almost-complete fossilized child's skeleton, discovered in a limestone cave in South Africa by Professor Lee Berger of the country's University of the Witwatersrand, is believed to provide new clues about the evolutionary gap "
What "evolutionary gap?" Would that not necessitate evolution to be a fact rather than a theory? The next paragraph is more blatant, and actually makes the untrue statement that apelike species DID evolve into humans - and again I point out, there is ZERO evidence of that:
"Scientists believe the new species is a hominid, a group of evolutionary primates including humans, that existed during the intermediary phase when apelike species evolved into humans."
Here, again, scientists seem to assume evolution to be fact rather than theory, since there is no evidence of any "transition":
"The fossil could provide new clues about the transition between the human species and its extinct, apelike ancestors. "
Now here is a scientist who, according to this news article, assumes evolution to be fact - to the point he considers himself an "expert in human evolution". Must be nice to be an expert in something that, to date, has no evidence it even exists:
"A find like this could really increase our understanding of our early ancestors at a time when they first started to become recognizable as human," Dr. Simon Underdown, an expert on human evolution at Oxford Brookes University, told the Telegraph."
In this one "news" article, acclaimed by "scientists", the assertion that evolution is a fact and that, like Global Warming, the "debate is over" is absurd. No true scientist worth the title would ever assume an unproved theory to be fact. But modern scientists seem to have no problem jumping to conclusions rather than basing their statements on facts. Scientists were once credible. No longer. I would sooner believe Gene Roddenbery (Star Trek creator).
I know many of you believe in evolution, but before you dismiss this altogether, just think about a couple of things:
1) In the laboratory we have observed over 500,000 generations of fruit flies. In all those generations, there has been no sign whatever of evolution. For perspective, 500,000 generations of humans would be 10,000,000 years. Bear in mind - that skeleton is only 2 million. Why would an ape transition into humans who can go to the moon in only 100,000 generations, but a fruit fly is still just a fruit fly after a whopping 500,000 generations?
2) While it is entirely possible - and likely - that species do evolve within their species (humans can evolve taller, for example, or end up with only 4 toes eventually), there is no probability - or possibility - that one species (such as an ape) can evolve into a different species (like human).
3) What we are is predetermined by our DNA. The DNA of almost every living thing on Earth has similarities, but there are no matches between species. To date, there is zero evidence that DNA can evolve into different DNA.
I suspect that someday science will discover that evolution between species is a fallacy. That will be the day when they discover that in the beginning there was only DNA, and it was variances in the DNA that made different species possible - with no chance whatever of evolving into a different species with different DNA.
/
One of the most recent examples is Global Warming, but I have had my say on that, many times over the years (most of which seems to be getting borne out, insofar as Global Warming is not what the "experts" have been telling us).
But there are other areas, as well. One of the most flagrant examples of pushing fiction so hard that it becomes fact in the minds of the less educated masses is evolution.
In the 150 years since Darwin espoused his theory, no evidence of any kind has ever come to light to prove out the theory. None. That is rather astounding, considering all the fossils, all the reasearch and all the YEARS science has been working on proving it. Yet, in all that time, nothing. Not one, single, solitary piece of proof. In 150 years of putting modern science to the task, you would think they would have come up with something.
So, it remains only a theory, unproven by any evidence whatever.
But every time some scientist makes a discovery, like the 2 million year old skeleton just found, they, and writers around the globe tout it as "proof" of evolution, or even worse, write their fiction in ways that lead readers to believe evolution was proved long ago and is already indisputed fact. It is not.
Here is an egregious example of the disingenuous hype that science puts out there, aimed at making us believe a theory is really a fact when it is not. These excerpts come from a news article concerning the skeleton I mentioned previously.
"The missing link between humans and their ape-like predecessors could be filled in this week with the unveiling of a 2 million-year-old skeleton believed to be that of a new species of evolutionary primate"
The article starts out by assuming evolution to be true. And it makes the reader subconsciously believe it to be fact. The very next paragraph tries to instill the belief in evolution even more deeply:
" The almost-complete fossilized child's skeleton, discovered in a limestone cave in South Africa by Professor Lee Berger of the country's University of the Witwatersrand, is believed to provide new clues about the evolutionary gap "
What "evolutionary gap?" Would that not necessitate evolution to be a fact rather than a theory? The next paragraph is more blatant, and actually makes the untrue statement that apelike species DID evolve into humans - and again I point out, there is ZERO evidence of that:
"Scientists believe the new species is a hominid, a group of evolutionary primates including humans, that existed during the intermediary phase when apelike species evolved into humans."
Here, again, scientists seem to assume evolution to be fact rather than theory, since there is no evidence of any "transition":
"The fossil could provide new clues about the transition between the human species and its extinct, apelike ancestors. "
Now here is a scientist who, according to this news article, assumes evolution to be fact - to the point he considers himself an "expert in human evolution". Must be nice to be an expert in something that, to date, has no evidence it even exists:
"A find like this could really increase our understanding of our early ancestors at a time when they first started to become recognizable as human," Dr. Simon Underdown, an expert on human evolution at Oxford Brookes University, told the Telegraph."
In this one "news" article, acclaimed by "scientists", the assertion that evolution is a fact and that, like Global Warming, the "debate is over" is absurd. No true scientist worth the title would ever assume an unproved theory to be fact. But modern scientists seem to have no problem jumping to conclusions rather than basing their statements on facts. Scientists were once credible. No longer. I would sooner believe Gene Roddenbery (Star Trek creator).
I know many of you believe in evolution, but before you dismiss this altogether, just think about a couple of things:
1) In the laboratory we have observed over 500,000 generations of fruit flies. In all those generations, there has been no sign whatever of evolution. For perspective, 500,000 generations of humans would be 10,000,000 years. Bear in mind - that skeleton is only 2 million. Why would an ape transition into humans who can go to the moon in only 100,000 generations, but a fruit fly is still just a fruit fly after a whopping 500,000 generations?
2) While it is entirely possible - and likely - that species do evolve within their species (humans can evolve taller, for example, or end up with only 4 toes eventually), there is no probability - or possibility - that one species (such as an ape) can evolve into a different species (like human).
3) What we are is predetermined by our DNA. The DNA of almost every living thing on Earth has similarities, but there are no matches between species. To date, there is zero evidence that DNA can evolve into different DNA.
I suspect that someday science will discover that evolution between species is a fallacy. That will be the day when they discover that in the beginning there was only DNA, and it was variances in the DNA that made different species possible - with no chance whatever of evolving into a different species with different DNA.
/
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Too Funny To Pass Up
No matter what side of the aisle you're on, this is funny and very telling! This was submitted by Bob the Iceman.
It just all depends on how you look at some things...
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory, as seen here.
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed..."
NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks! That's real POLITICAL SPIN
[This author of this blog has researched this and it is standard internet political jibe. The photo is actually of the train-robbing outlaw, Tom "Black Jack" Ketchum. But political humor or not, it does seem to be the way things are spun in Washington.]
/
It just all depends on how you look at some things...
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Congressman Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory, as seen here.
On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
"Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed..."
NOW THAT's how it's done, Folks! That's real POLITICAL SPIN
[This author of this blog has researched this and it is standard internet political jibe. The photo is actually of the train-robbing outlaw, Tom "Black Jack" Ketchum. But political humor or not, it does seem to be the way things are spun in Washington.]
/
Friday, April 2, 2010
Holding Congressmen Accountable
I was watching a most interesting tape this evening, featuring Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL). A reporter asked Congressman Hare, "Where in the Constitution does the government find the right to mandate health care?"
The Congressman responded, "I don't care about the Constitution." He said it TWICE.
Well, Mr. Hare, I'm sorry to hear that, considering that in order to BE a Congressman you had to swear an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. Your response indicates that you have no interest in upholding the law of the land, so you are in breach of your oath of office and need to step down. (It does not help that when asked, he did not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.)
People of Illinois, if you believe in the Constitution - you know, the little thing that makes sure you have basic human rights - then you owe it to yourselves and to the nation to impeach this clown. He is unworthy of holding ANY elected office anywhere in America.
It is thoroughly disgusting to see exactly what our Congress actually thinks of us, the Constitution and our rights. Let's change that in November. We do not need Congressmen who do not care about the Constitution, like Hare, or who think an island can capsize, as does Johnson. We need reasonably intelligent and educated people.
/
The Congressman responded, "I don't care about the Constitution." He said it TWICE.
Well, Mr. Hare, I'm sorry to hear that, considering that in order to BE a Congressman you had to swear an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. Your response indicates that you have no interest in upholding the law of the land, so you are in breach of your oath of office and need to step down. (It does not help that when asked, he did not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.)
People of Illinois, if you believe in the Constitution - you know, the little thing that makes sure you have basic human rights - then you owe it to yourselves and to the nation to impeach this clown. He is unworthy of holding ANY elected office anywhere in America.
It is thoroughly disgusting to see exactly what our Congress actually thinks of us, the Constitution and our rights. Let's change that in November. We do not need Congressmen who do not care about the Constitution, like Hare, or who think an island can capsize, as does Johnson. We need reasonably intelligent and educated people.
/
Double-Speak
"AP - The nation's economy posted its largest job gain in three years in March, while the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent for the third straight month."
[Editor] I hope I am not alone in noticing what appears to be administration double-speak here. If there are significant job gains, as touted here, then should not the unemployment rate show that?
"The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census.'
[Editor] I see - a full 25% of those "gains" are bogus - not only are they government jobs, which do not count because they put no new money into the economy, but they are VERY temporary.
"More Americans entered the work force last month, which prevented the increase in jobs from reducing the unemployment rate."
[Editor] This sounds plausible and makes this liberal-slanted story appear legitimate until you actually stop and think:
There is not a month goes by that more Americans do not enter the workforce - every month, kids turn of working age.Using that as an excuse this month and not taking it into account in previous months is disingenuous, to say the least. In ANY month where the unemployment rate remains unchanged, that shows that jobs were gained and lost at the same rate because more workers entered the job market. It is simple math. If someone gets a job but the jobless rate is unchanged, then someone else must have either lost a job or a new worker did not find one. If you have ten people and only five are working, the unemployment rate is 50%. If you add two people who turn of age, and one of those finds a job, you STILL have an unemployment rate of 50%. Are more people working? Yes - six are working. But more people are also unemployed, because in order for the rate not to change, six, instead of five are now unemployed.
In short, this AP article is the typical liberal spin that AP churns out. The facts are far different from the story they paint - because the rate is unchanged, yet people were added to the workforce, that can only mean that more people (numbers, not percentage) are unemployed than before.
When you add people to the job market, yet the unemployment rate remains the same, that means at least half the new job seekers are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. So, while the "rate" is unchanged, the number of unemployed is up, not down as this story intentionally tries to falsely imply.
/
[Editor] I hope I am not alone in noticing what appears to be administration double-speak here. If there are significant job gains, as touted here, then should not the unemployment rate show that?
"The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census.'
[Editor] I see - a full 25% of those "gains" are bogus - not only are they government jobs, which do not count because they put no new money into the economy, but they are VERY temporary.
"More Americans entered the work force last month, which prevented the increase in jobs from reducing the unemployment rate."
[Editor] This sounds plausible and makes this liberal-slanted story appear legitimate until you actually stop and think:
There is not a month goes by that more Americans do not enter the workforce - every month, kids turn of working age.Using that as an excuse this month and not taking it into account in previous months is disingenuous, to say the least. In ANY month where the unemployment rate remains unchanged, that shows that jobs were gained and lost at the same rate because more workers entered the job market. It is simple math. If someone gets a job but the jobless rate is unchanged, then someone else must have either lost a job or a new worker did not find one. If you have ten people and only five are working, the unemployment rate is 50%. If you add two people who turn of age, and one of those finds a job, you STILL have an unemployment rate of 50%. Are more people working? Yes - six are working. But more people are also unemployed, because in order for the rate not to change, six, instead of five are now unemployed.
In short, this AP article is the typical liberal spin that AP churns out. The facts are far different from the story they paint - because the rate is unchanged, yet people were added to the workforce, that can only mean that more people (numbers, not percentage) are unemployed than before.
When you add people to the job market, yet the unemployment rate remains the same, that means at least half the new job seekers are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. So, while the "rate" is unchanged, the number of unemployed is up, not down as this story intentionally tries to falsely imply.
/
Thursday, April 1, 2010
This Is No April Fool Prank...
But this clown is certainly an fool. When I first heard of this, I thought it was a prank. Come to find out, it is true - a Democrat Congressman from Georgie, Hank Johnson, was taped making the statement in a Congressional hearing that if we add more troops to Guam, he was afraid the island "would tip over and capsize." You can see the actual video and read the actual transcripts here - it's so-o-o funny.
To the people of Georgia, you should be fully ashamed of yourselves for electing such an obvious moron to represent you. Do you not believe you deserve better?
/
To the people of Georgia, you should be fully ashamed of yourselves for electing such an obvious moron to represent you. Do you not believe you deserve better?
/
Rights Come With Responsibilities
When the Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay group based in Topeka, Kan., picketed the 2006 funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder bearing signs that read "God Hates the USA," "God Hates Gays" and God Loves Dead Soldiers", the serviceman's father, Albert Snyder, sued for infliction of emotional distress, winning an $11 million judgment in 2007. But that did not end it.Upon appeal, Snyder's award was overturned and a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge last week ordered Snyder to pay $16,510.80 of the Westboro Baptist Church's almost $100,000 in legal fees.
Bill O'Reilly of FOX NEWS' "The O'Reilly Factor" says he will pay the legal tab for the father of the fallen Marine. Said O'Reilly,: "I'm not going to let this injustice stand."
On Good Morning America Snyder stated, "It was bad enough that they reversed the decision, but then to tell me I had to pay them money so they can do this to more military funerals, that's what hurts the most."
The so-called "church", which bears no resemblance to anything Christian is well-known for it vile hatred of almost everyone but themselves. They make it their life's work to promote hatred for gays, soldiers and almost anyone else not in their little clicque. According to them, God does not love; God hates. And there is nothing Christian in that.
But the legal argument is what I find interesting here. In the first court action, the judge determined the "church" had over-stepped their right to free speech by imposing their hate speech at a funeral, where a certain decorum is expected and deserved. The appeals court found otherwise - that people have the right to ANY speech, any time and any place.
I believe the appeals court has conveniently overlooked the concept that freedom of speech is not infinite. It does not permit libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And you cannot incite violence or a riot. Exceptions to free speech are made because there is an unspoken part in all our rights - while we do have certain rights, we do not have the right to abuse those rights. Rights come with responsibilities. And this "church" completely ignores responsibilities and overtly abuses their right to free speech.
This will go to the Supreme Court. It's hard to say how they will find, since several of the justices are activists, and do not pay much heed to the Constitution. But I suspect Snyder will win in the end, because this, so far, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It always is, when the bad guys win and the honorable are beaten down.
So, folks, what do you think? Would you feel this "church" has a right to come to the funeral of one of your own loved ones, and picket, protest and denegrate the memory of that loved one? Or if they came and did that at your own wedding - should "free speech" allow that?
/
Bill O'Reilly of FOX NEWS' "The O'Reilly Factor" says he will pay the legal tab for the father of the fallen Marine. Said O'Reilly,: "I'm not going to let this injustice stand."
On Good Morning America Snyder stated, "It was bad enough that they reversed the decision, but then to tell me I had to pay them money so they can do this to more military funerals, that's what hurts the most."
The so-called "church", which bears no resemblance to anything Christian is well-known for it vile hatred of almost everyone but themselves. They make it their life's work to promote hatred for gays, soldiers and almost anyone else not in their little clicque. According to them, God does not love; God hates. And there is nothing Christian in that.
But the legal argument is what I find interesting here. In the first court action, the judge determined the "church" had over-stepped their right to free speech by imposing their hate speech at a funeral, where a certain decorum is expected and deserved. The appeals court found otherwise - that people have the right to ANY speech, any time and any place.
I believe the appeals court has conveniently overlooked the concept that freedom of speech is not infinite. It does not permit libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And you cannot incite violence or a riot. Exceptions to free speech are made because there is an unspoken part in all our rights - while we do have certain rights, we do not have the right to abuse those rights. Rights come with responsibilities. And this "church" completely ignores responsibilities and overtly abuses their right to free speech.
This will go to the Supreme Court. It's hard to say how they will find, since several of the justices are activists, and do not pay much heed to the Constitution. But I suspect Snyder will win in the end, because this, so far, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It always is, when the bad guys win and the honorable are beaten down.
So, folks, what do you think? Would you feel this "church" has a right to come to the funeral of one of your own loved ones, and picket, protest and denegrate the memory of that loved one? Or if they came and did that at your own wedding - should "free speech" allow that?
/
Giving (Ex) Cons the Right To Vote
The misnamed Democracy Restoration Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., (whose politician wife is a convicted felon) would force all states to immediately restore the voting rights of convicted felons the moment they leave prison -- even if they're on probation or have paid none of the civil penalties imposed on them.
I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...
Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.
Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.
The Democrats in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".
So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.
And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.
Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.
/
I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...
Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.
Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.
The Democrats in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".
So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.
And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.
Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)