"Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
T. Roosevelt, 1907
Your daily dose of COMMON SENSE about important and current events.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Here is what I don't understand.
Here is what I don't understand, how is it that that in America we have a party that wishes only to expand its own power and we have another that is fighting within itself. The Democratic party is interested in one thing, protecting the power it has and the government through which it has it. They aim to expand that said same power on a continual basis. The Republican party is struggling within itself trying to determine if it is going be very conservative or go back to the party establishment way.
So we have the Democrats, they are either in total denial of the debt and spending problem our county has or they don't care. Another more sinister possibility is they are intentionally trying to sabotage and destroy the country. We have a President that single handily spent/borrowed more money in the 3 years he has been in office than the county did from 1776 to 2005. Now that is quite an achievement. An achievement not to brag about. And just recently his government handed down new regulation about mercury and coal fired plants. This will close down at least 20 plants and cost thousands of jobs. This will also cost additional hardships on families because the price of electricity will go up.
So how could any one in their right mind be a Democrat anyway? They are astonishingly backwards in their thinking. They favour allowing women to hire a "doctor" to murder their own unborn child. They think a tree or a spotted owl somewhere is more important than a red blooded American who is just trying to make ends meet and support his family, but now he cant because his plant just shut down. It shut down because some liberal thought it was disturbing some endangered tree or something.They will not allow the American ingenuity to be unleashed to solve our energy crisis. If they would just not regulate industry after industry to death America could be thriving again!
So we have the Democrats, they are either in total denial of the debt and spending problem our county has or they don't care. Another more sinister possibility is they are intentionally trying to sabotage and destroy the country. We have a President that single handily spent/borrowed more money in the 3 years he has been in office than the county did from 1776 to 2005. Now that is quite an achievement. An achievement not to brag about. And just recently his government handed down new regulation about mercury and coal fired plants. This will close down at least 20 plants and cost thousands of jobs. This will also cost additional hardships on families because the price of electricity will go up.
So how could any one in their right mind be a Democrat anyway? They are astonishingly backwards in their thinking. They favour allowing women to hire a "doctor" to murder their own unborn child. They think a tree or a spotted owl somewhere is more important than a red blooded American who is just trying to make ends meet and support his family, but now he cant because his plant just shut down. It shut down because some liberal thought it was disturbing some endangered tree or something.They will not allow the American ingenuity to be unleashed to solve our energy crisis. If they would just not regulate industry after industry to death America could be thriving again!
Monday, December 26, 2011
President Obama with little respect for religious freedoms
The President has little respect for real Christan religions among others. He claims so but his actions speak louder than words. His democratic party seeks constantly to dismantle the freedom to express our religious beliefs publicly, but it did not start with him. There has been a constant eroding of our freedom to publicly express our religious beliefs for over fifty years.
We need to unite in our belief we have a constitutional right to express our religious beliefs and exercise them as our God has told us in his word. Our founders did not put into the constitution a separation of church and state. That is wording Jefferson used to describe a governing Principal he believed erroneously in.
Separation of Church and State
We need to unite in our belief we have a constitutional right to express our religious beliefs and exercise them as our God has told us in his word. Our founders did not put into the constitution a separation of church and state. That is wording Jefferson used to describe a governing Principal he believed erroneously in.
Separation of Church and State
The Declaration of Independence from the Democratic Party!
IN America, December 26, 2011
The unanimous Declaration of the freedom loving people of the united States of AmericaWhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political authority of a treasoness party and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the rejection of said party.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any political party becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to elect new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that American's are more disposed to suffer, while under the evils of the Democratic party. Americans will now right themselves by abolishing the tyranny of the Democratic party. And after a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is every Americans' duty, to throw off the Democratic party, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any political party becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to elect new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that American's are more disposed to suffer, while under the evils of the Democratic party. Americans will now right themselves by abolishing the tyranny of the Democratic party. And after a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is every Americans' duty, to throw off the Democratic party, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Poll finds most undecided on right-to-work (By Dan Carden)
INDIANAPOLIS | The only independent public opinion poll to ask Hoosiers about the right-to-work issue found most have no opinion on the proposed labor policy that is set to dominate the upcoming session of the Indiana General Assembly.
The nonpartisan Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State University in Muncie surveyed 607 randomly selected Hoosiers via cellular and landline telephones last month about right-to-work and other political topics.
Prior to asking each respondent for his or her opinion about right-to-work, Bowen Center callers explained that a right-to-work law would make it illegal for labor unions to collect dues from employees who choose not to join the union.
The questioners also told respondents that some people believe a right-to-work law will bring more jobs to the state, and other people say right-to-work lowers wages for all workers and doesn't reduce unemployment.
Even after being informed of both sides of the issue, 47.8 percent of respondents said they don't have an opinion on right-to-work.
Among respondents with an opinion, 26.9 percent said they support right-to-work, and 23.6 percent said they oppose right-to-work.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
Raymond Scheele, co-director of the Bowen Center, said the results show there is no consensus among Hoosiers on right-to-work.
"Clearly neither side on this issue has closed the deal," Scheele said. "This is not a settled issue in Indiana."
The Bowen Center results differ from polls conducted for the House Republican Campaign Committee run by House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, who supports right-to-work, and the Indiana AFL-CIO, which opposes it.
The House Republicans' poll found 65 percThent support a right-to-work law and 28 percent oppose it.
But that poll incorrectly defined right-to-work as a law that ensures "a worker cannot be required to join a labor union or pay labor union dues in order to get or keep a job." Since 1947, federal law has prohibited mandatory union membership as a job condition and no American worker can be required to pay union dues.
The AFL-CIO poll found 47 percent of Hoosiers oppose right-to-work when they are told the proposed labor policy change will reduce union membership in Indiana, as it has in other right-to-work states. Only 38 percent said they support right-to-work with that outcome.
Scheele said if either of those polls was accurate Bosma wouldn't be spending his campaign funds to appear in TV commercials in several areas of the state urging Hoosiers to support right-to-work.
"If there was not an undecided block, we wouldn't see the TV ads," Scheele said.
Bosma and Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, have declared right-to-work their top priority for the Legislature, which begins its 2012 session Jan. 4. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels also supports a right-to-work law for Indiana.
The nonpartisan Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State University in Muncie surveyed 607 randomly selected Hoosiers via cellular and landline telephones last month about right-to-work and other political topics.
Prior to asking each respondent for his or her opinion about right-to-work, Bowen Center callers explained that a right-to-work law would make it illegal for labor unions to collect dues from employees who choose not to join the union.
The questioners also told respondents that some people believe a right-to-work law will bring more jobs to the state, and other people say right-to-work lowers wages for all workers and doesn't reduce unemployment.
Even after being informed of both sides of the issue, 47.8 percent of respondents said they don't have an opinion on right-to-work.
Among respondents with an opinion, 26.9 percent said they support right-to-work, and 23.6 percent said they oppose right-to-work.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.
Raymond Scheele, co-director of the Bowen Center, said the results show there is no consensus among Hoosiers on right-to-work.
"Clearly neither side on this issue has closed the deal," Scheele said. "This is not a settled issue in Indiana."
The Bowen Center results differ from polls conducted for the House Republican Campaign Committee run by House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, who supports right-to-work, and the Indiana AFL-CIO, which opposes it.
The House Republicans' poll found 65 percThent support a right-to-work law and 28 percent oppose it.
But that poll incorrectly defined right-to-work as a law that ensures "a worker cannot be required to join a labor union or pay labor union dues in order to get or keep a job." Since 1947, federal law has prohibited mandatory union membership as a job condition and no American worker can be required to pay union dues.
The AFL-CIO poll found 47 percent of Hoosiers oppose right-to-work when they are told the proposed labor policy change will reduce union membership in Indiana, as it has in other right-to-work states. Only 38 percent said they support right-to-work with that outcome.
Scheele said if either of those polls was accurate Bosma wouldn't be spending his campaign funds to appear in TV commercials in several areas of the state urging Hoosiers to support right-to-work.
"If there was not an undecided block, we wouldn't see the TV ads," Scheele said.
Bosma and Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, have declared right-to-work their top priority for the Legislature, which begins its 2012 session Jan. 4. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels also supports a right-to-work law for Indiana.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
The Birth of Jesus! (Luke 2:1-20)
The Birth of Jesus
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
The Shepherds and the Angels
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
The Shepherds and the Angels
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Quote of the Day
"The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought."
Samuel Adams, 1771
Samuel Adams, 1771
Friday, December 16, 2011
A VOTERS' GUIDE TO REPUBLICANS
A great video. This is a must see. This explains how Republicans are evil, greedy racists.
President Ronald Reagan and the ministry of Christ
President Ronald Reagan once commented on the earthly ministry of Christ: "Meaning no disrespect to the religious convictions of others, I still can't help wondering how we can explain away what to me is the greatest miracle of all and which is recorded in history. No one denies there was such a man, that he lived and that He was put to death by crucifixion. Where....is the miracle I spoke of? Well consider this and let your imagination translate the story into our own time-possibly to your own home town."
"A young man whose father is a carpenter grows up working in His father's shop. One day He puts down His tools and walks out of His father's shop. He starts preaching on street corners and in nearby countryside, walking from place to place, preaching all the while, even though He is not an ordained minister. He does this for three years. Then He is arrested, tried, and convicted. There is no court of appeal, so He is executed at the age of 33 along with two common thieves. Those in charge of His execution roll dice to see who gets His clothing-the only possessions He has. His family cannot afford a burial place for Him so He is interred in a borrowed tomb. End of story? No, this uneducated, property less young man who....left no written word has, for 2,000 years, had a greater effect on the world than all the rulers, kings, emperors; all put together. How do we explain that?....unless He really was who He said He was."
As President Reagan noted, Jesus has had more impact on the world than any ruler or philosopher who has ever lived. He changed history by his birth and is still changing the world today.
"A young man whose father is a carpenter grows up working in His father's shop. One day He puts down His tools and walks out of His father's shop. He starts preaching on street corners and in nearby countryside, walking from place to place, preaching all the while, even though He is not an ordained minister. He does this for three years. Then He is arrested, tried, and convicted. There is no court of appeal, so He is executed at the age of 33 along with two common thieves. Those in charge of His execution roll dice to see who gets His clothing-the only possessions He has. His family cannot afford a burial place for Him so He is interred in a borrowed tomb. End of story? No, this uneducated, property less young man who....left no written word has, for 2,000 years, had a greater effect on the world than all the rulers, kings, emperors; all put together. How do we explain that?....unless He really was who He said He was."
As President Reagan noted, Jesus has had more impact on the world than any ruler or philosopher who has ever lived. He changed history by his birth and is still changing the world today.
Quote of the Day
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
President Ronald Reagan
President Ronald Reagan
Thursday, December 15, 2011
How can Abortion be Health Care?
Parenthood and the abortion lobby define abortion as health care, as being morally equivalent tPlanned o a tonsillectomy. On Planned Parenthood’s Web site, the very first category under Health on the navigation bar is Abortion. The abortion lobby for years has been using poll tested language to try to main stream abortion into the health care category. They call abortion "reproductive health" and now are trying to just label it as your average health care issue,as a tonsillectomy. They know if they can redefine abortion from what it is, to just another aspect of health care they will have won the debate. It will cease to be such a wide spread hot button issue and be categorized as health care by the federal government. The Americans United for Life legal team has documented cases in seven circuit courts and several federal district courts where the “mandatory categories of care” under Medicaid have been defined to include abortion. This is a disingenuous use of medicaid money.
Common sense would tell anyone that abortion is not health care. How could something, with its main objective to stop the beating of a human heart and subsequently cause that humans intentional death, be considered health care? Abortion by its very nature is the exact opposite of health care, and the abortion lobby knows this. That is why they have, for the past several years, been using their poll tested language for abortion, "reproductive health", as their new code word for abortion. So what is abortion? According to the dictionary, abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy and/or any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
So what are some of these so called "reproductive health" methods for terminating a pregnancy? During the first twelve weeks "suction abortion" is the most common technique used. Basically this procedure involves the use of a vacuum type machine used to suck the fetus out. This machine is 29 times more powerful than a common vacuum it basically tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. Another method, which used to be very popular, is saline poisoning. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.). I am literally getting sick to my stomach as I write this. Will just tell you of one more method then I have to stop, this is just too heart wrenching to write about any more. The most cruel and in human method, which is currently restricted by law, of abortion is Partial Birth Abortion. The five steps to this are: 1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps, 2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal, 3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head, 4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull, and 5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
I refer back to my original question, How can abortion be health care? Did any of this sound like health or care to you? How can anyone justify doing this? How can this be considered "a right" guaranteed by the Constitution (Roe v. Wade)? How can the members of the cultural left expect normal caring people to stand by silently while this is going on? How can they have the gall to think that they can relabel abortion as "reproductive health" and it will be OK? I end how i began. How can abortion be health care?
Related Post:
Abort Planned Parenthood Funding
Related Post:
Abort Planned Parenthood Funding
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Democrats the Party of NO! To anything that would actually help America
The illogic of the Democrats does not cease to amaze me. They keep saying we need to tax the rich. They say the rich need to pay more taxes to the federal government. Well taxes is simply revenue the government collects to use to pay for national defense, entitlement programs and for use in the general welfare of the republic and it's citizens. So the Dem's say we need more revenue from the wealthiest of Americans coming into the federal coffers. All right then the Republicans propose making the wealthiest of Americans pay more for their medicare. In response to this logical, responsible and fair proposal to bring more revenue into the government and get that revenue from the wealthiest of Americans the Dem's come out against it. The Dem's say they want to create more jobs and they would prefer those jobs be union jobs too. So the Republicans propose a vote on allowing the Key Stone oil pipeline to go from Canada to the gulf coast. This pipeline project would create an immediate 20,000 jobs and create an additional 100,000 spin off jobs. Most of these jobs will be high paying union jobs. So guess what, the Dem's are against that too. The Dem's say they want to lower the deficit and reduce spending but they cant seem to stop themselves from proposing one spending program after the other. The Dem's say they want a bipartisan payroll tax cut bill, but they reject and attack anything proposed by the Republicans. The Democratic party leadership is inept, out of touch, selfish and cowardly. They are afraid of doing anything other that spending more of our money. They don't want to curtail the spending programs because as long as they can keep spending money they can keep wielding power. President Obama is the weakest, most unpatriotic, illogical and unable to see or face reality of a President the country has ever had. We need change. We need change now Mr. President for the sake of our blessed country we need you to be changing your address come January of 2012!
The Main Principles of Americanism
The principle of the Sovereignty of the People is one of the key principles of what I call Americanism. You have distinctive forms of government around the world. You have Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Dictatorships, you have so called Theocracies in the Middle East. I propose Americas form and attitude of governance is peculiar to her. I suggest no other country in the world has ever had such a form or governance and spirit of independence as has America. In America the principle of the Sovereignty of the People is recognized by customs and proclaimed by our laws. It arrives unimpeded to the remotest parts of our land. This principle can be studied and seen in the affairs of the country. Example, the sovereign will of the people can be seen and expressed in the elections of our representatives. If we feel our sovereign rights are not being protected we will exercises our rights and vote the members of government we perceive to be in error out. In America all power comes from the hands of the people and we submit and trust that power to the hands of the elected government. If they break that trust they are not usually long in office. The people participate in the making of our laws by the choosing of our legislatures. We participate in the execution of our laws by the choosing of our executives. The people are the sovereigns of the political world in America. The power of all elected officials ultimately originates of the people, by the people and for the people. Let us guard earnestly this principle of Americanism and when it is threatened let us defend it!
Most American's Pay NO TAXES?!
Taxes are all about the numbers. Tax rates, income brackets and what you may owe or get back as a refund from the I.R.S. An analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the majority of Americans get a free ride on the backs of the minority. The Committee found that only 49% of Americans in 2009 paid any taxes, 51% paid no taxes at all. The same report also pointed out that 30% actually made money, profited thanks to the tax code.
The Joint Committee said the 2009 figures are not yet final, but the unofficial results are devastating enough. We are now a 'nanny state' where the minority pays for and takes care of all the governmental needs of the majority, and some of the minority actually make money off the tax code (i.e. Earned Income Credit).
The Joint Committee numbers are slightly higher than the recent report by the nonprofit Tax Policy Center that said around 45% of U.S. households will end up paying no taxes. Again, these studies look at income taxes, not other taxes such as FICA payroll taxes that go toward the Social Security and Medicare programs.
A Tax Fairness hearing has been requested by the Seante Finance committe to look into the distribution of tax benefits and the overall burden of the tax code to those who pay the taxes. In his opening remarks, Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) pointed out the perception by many taxpayers that loopholes and tax benefits exist mainly for the rich. This, he said, makes it difficult to achieve the goal to see a fairer and more equitable tax system.
Reconciling the tax loopholes so that everyone is satisfied, including the U.S. Treasury and the IRS, is no easy task. Senate Finance Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in his opening statement, "How Washington politicians hope to determine this fair share in an even-handed way that does no harm to our economy and job creators remains a mystery to me." You sure can bet that Hatch and his colleagues will get lots of suggestions of how to solve the tax code problem as the debate continues.
The Joint Committee said the 2009 figures are not yet final, but the unofficial results are devastating enough. We are now a 'nanny state' where the minority pays for and takes care of all the governmental needs of the majority, and some of the minority actually make money off the tax code (i.e. Earned Income Credit).
The Joint Committee numbers are slightly higher than the recent report by the nonprofit Tax Policy Center that said around 45% of U.S. households will end up paying no taxes. Again, these studies look at income taxes, not other taxes such as FICA payroll taxes that go toward the Social Security and Medicare programs.
A Tax Fairness hearing has been requested by the Seante Finance committe to look into the distribution of tax benefits and the overall burden of the tax code to those who pay the taxes. In his opening remarks, Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) pointed out the perception by many taxpayers that loopholes and tax benefits exist mainly for the rich. This, he said, makes it difficult to achieve the goal to see a fairer and more equitable tax system.
Reconciling the tax loopholes so that everyone is satisfied, including the U.S. Treasury and the IRS, is no easy task. Senate Finance Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in his opening statement, "How Washington politicians hope to determine this fair share in an even-handed way that does no harm to our economy and job creators remains a mystery to me." You sure can bet that Hatch and his colleagues will get lots of suggestions of how to solve the tax code problem as the debate continues.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Quote of the Day
"Protection of our Constitutional liberties should be the paramount concern of our day."
Plubius
Plubius
The Need of the End of the Obama Presidency
The America we know is rapidly disappearing. Thanks in large part to the disastrous presidency of his Eminence B. H. Obama. His liberal policies, and lack of leadership is destroying our economy and society. The blind lemmings that follow him regardless of what he does or what he stands for. You cant tell me that all the democrats in this country believe like Obama. So then why do they vote for them. If people would actually pay attention to what politicians believe and vote intelligently, and vote for themselves and not for party we could change the country for the good. I blame the conservative middle of the road Americans who keep voting democratic just because they always have or because that is the way mom or dad voted. Open your eyes. Listen and vote intelligently. You seriously could not want the country to be like it is. The country will only get worse under four more years of Obama. Four more years of Obama would be the end of the late great United States.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why the Blago Sentence was wrong!
The sentence of 14 years Gov. Rod Blagojevich received is considered by many legal experts as pretty harsh. It is the wrong sentence. The former Governor received an unfair and morally wrong sentence of 14 years from Judge Zagel. I know some people will say "but that was not even half of what the guidelines suggested his sentence should be". Let me say this, what he did was wrong, dishonest, and self serving, but it was not worthy of receiving 14 years in a Federal penitentiary; missing the lives of his young girls as they grow up. This sentence is also, I contend, arguably unconstitutional - as in cruel and unusual punishment. I am no fan of the Ex-Governors, but what he basically got convicted of was nothing more than talking about doing something illegal without actually ever doing it. How many of us say things contemplating doing something illegal, like "man I could kill him," or " I should take that stuff from work, it would only be fair they don't pay me enough." Now what if you then were arrested on charges of murder and theft just because you talked about doing them. You never would have done them and you never did, but you were arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison just for saying them. What does this say about are justice system. We have child rapists being set free after just a few years, and then you have a man talk about doing something wrong and he goes away to prison for 14 years?
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Jackson / Lincoln - remarkable how history works out.
At the close of the great nullifier's debate where the south sought the right, led by South Carolina and then Vice President Calhoun, who later became Senator of South Carolina, to nullify a federal law if they did not like it. And after the 'great compromise' put together by Senator Clay: President Jackson wrote "Keep me constantly advised of matters relating to the conduct or movements of the nullifier's" he wrote on March 6th 1833, "and all will be well, and the federal union preserved." Two months later Jackson wrote "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the Negro, or the slavery question." Six days later President Jackson appointed the new postmaster for New Salem, Illinois a 24 year old lawyer who had just lost a race for state legislature. The post was hardly major but that young lawyer Abraham Lincoln was happy to accept it.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Panetta Scolds Israel - Fox News
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Israel on Friday to "reach out and mend fences" with Turkey, Egypt and other security partners in the Middle East, saying he is troubled by the Jewish state's growing isolation in the volatile region.
He also pressed Israeli leaders to do more to restart peace talks with the Palestinians -- "Just get to the damned table" -- and underscored President Obama's determination to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iran "a very grave threat to all of us" and said any Iranian disruption of the free flow of commerce through the Persian Gulf is a "red line" for the U.S.
In a speech at a Brookings Institution forum, Panetta said that while Israel is not solely responsible for its isolation, it could more actively attempt to reverse the trend.
"For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said.
He also pressed Israeli leaders to do more to restart peace talks with the Palestinians -- "Just get to the damned table" -- and underscored President Obama's determination to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iran "a very grave threat to all of us" and said any Iranian disruption of the free flow of commerce through the Persian Gulf is a "red line" for the U.S.
In a speech at a Brookings Institution forum, Panetta said that while Israel is not solely responsible for its isolation, it could more actively attempt to reverse the trend.
"For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Quote of the Day
"The tyranny of the legislature is the most formidable dread at present and will be for many years."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Nigeria to Criminalize Gay Marriage. - Fox News
Nigeria's Senate voted to criminalize gay marriage, gay advocacy groups and same-sex public displays of affection, the latest legislation targeting a minority already facing discrimination in Africa's most populous nation.
The bill, now much more wide-ranging than its initial draft, must be passed by Nigeria's House of Representatives and signed by President Goodluck Jonathan before becoming law. However, public opinion and lawmakers' calls Tuesday for even harsher penalties show the widespread support for the measure in the deeply religious nation.
"Such elements in society should be killed," said Sen. Baba-Ahmed Yusuf Datti of the opposition party Congress for Progressive Change, drawing some murmurs of support from the gallery.
Gay sex has been banned in Nigeria, a nation of more than 160 million people, since colonial rule by the British. Gays and lesbians face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided between Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. In the areas in Nigeria's north where Islamic Shariah law has been enforced for about a decade, gays and lesbians can face death by stoning.
Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars. That's an increase over the bill's initial penalties, which lawmakers proposed during a debate Tuesday televised live from the National Assembly in Nigeria's capital Abuja.
Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the "public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly." Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.
The increased penalties immediately drew criticism from human rights observers.
"The bill will expand Nigeria's already draconian punishments for consensual same-sex conduct and set a precedent that would threaten all Nigerians' rights to privacy, equality, free expression, association and to be free from discrimination," said Erwin van der Borght, the director of Amnesty International's Africa program.
Yet across the African continent, many countries already have made homosexuality punishable by jail sentences. Ugandan legislators introduced a bill that would impose the death penalty for some gays and lesbians, though it has not been passed into law two years later. Even in South Africa, the one country where gays can marry, lesbians have been brutally attacked and murdered.
Nigeria's proposed law has drawn the interest of European Union countries, some of which already offer Nigeria's sexual minorities asylum based on gender identity. The British government recently threatened to cut aid to African countries that violate the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. However, British aid remains quite small in oil-rich Nigeria, one of the top crude suppliers to the U.S.
A spokesman for the British High Commission in Nigeria declined to comment Tuesday, saying officials wanted to study the new version of the bill first.
The bill also could target human rights and HIV-prevention programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Nigeria, which has the world's third-largest population of people living with HIV and AIDS. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman declined to comment.
International opinion didn't seem to trouble lawmakers, who at times laughed at each other during the debate. One senator worried the bill would hinder the tradition of Nigeria's Igbo ethnic group in the southeast to have infertile wives "marry" other women to carry their husbands' children. Another said gays suffer from a "mental illness."
Senate President David Mark at one point started laughing when a senator proposed 40-year prison sentences for gay couples who marry.
"Forty years, that is just too much," he said. "He won't come out alive now."
Before the vote, Mark did acknowledge the nation likely would face criticism. However, the lawmaker said Nigeria would not bow to international pressure on any legislation.
"Anybody can write to us, but our values are our values," Mark said. "If there is any country that does not want to give us aid or assistance, just because we hold on very firmly to our values, that country can (keep) their assistance. No country has a right to interfere in the way we make our own laws."
The bill, now much more wide-ranging than its initial draft, must be passed by Nigeria's House of Representatives and signed by President Goodluck Jonathan before becoming law. However, public opinion and lawmakers' calls Tuesday for even harsher penalties show the widespread support for the measure in the deeply religious nation.
"Such elements in society should be killed," said Sen. Baba-Ahmed Yusuf Datti of the opposition party Congress for Progressive Change, drawing some murmurs of support from the gallery.
Gay sex has been banned in Nigeria, a nation of more than 160 million people, since colonial rule by the British. Gays and lesbians face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided between Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. In the areas in Nigeria's north where Islamic Shariah law has been enforced for about a decade, gays and lesbians can face death by stoning.
Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars. That's an increase over the bill's initial penalties, which lawmakers proposed during a debate Tuesday televised live from the National Assembly in Nigeria's capital Abuja.
Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the "public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly." Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.
The increased penalties immediately drew criticism from human rights observers.
"The bill will expand Nigeria's already draconian punishments for consensual same-sex conduct and set a precedent that would threaten all Nigerians' rights to privacy, equality, free expression, association and to be free from discrimination," said Erwin van der Borght, the director of Amnesty International's Africa program.
Yet across the African continent, many countries already have made homosexuality punishable by jail sentences. Ugandan legislators introduced a bill that would impose the death penalty for some gays and lesbians, though it has not been passed into law two years later. Even in South Africa, the one country where gays can marry, lesbians have been brutally attacked and murdered.
Nigeria's proposed law has drawn the interest of European Union countries, some of which already offer Nigeria's sexual minorities asylum based on gender identity. The British government recently threatened to cut aid to African countries that violate the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. However, British aid remains quite small in oil-rich Nigeria, one of the top crude suppliers to the U.S.
A spokesman for the British High Commission in Nigeria declined to comment Tuesday, saying officials wanted to study the new version of the bill first.
The bill also could target human rights and HIV-prevention programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Nigeria, which has the world's third-largest population of people living with HIV and AIDS. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman declined to comment.
International opinion didn't seem to trouble lawmakers, who at times laughed at each other during the debate. One senator worried the bill would hinder the tradition of Nigeria's Igbo ethnic group in the southeast to have infertile wives "marry" other women to carry their husbands' children. Another said gays suffer from a "mental illness."
Senate President David Mark at one point started laughing when a senator proposed 40-year prison sentences for gay couples who marry.
"Forty years, that is just too much," he said. "He won't come out alive now."
Before the vote, Mark did acknowledge the nation likely would face criticism. However, the lawmaker said Nigeria would not bow to international pressure on any legislation.
"Anybody can write to us, but our values are our values," Mark said. "If there is any country that does not want to give us aid or assistance, just because we hold on very firmly to our values, that country can (keep) their assistance. No country has a right to interfere in the way we make our own laws."
Quote of the Day
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Monday, November 28, 2011
Fitch cuts U.S. Outlook to Negative. By Aaron Katersky. ABC. News
There are new doubts about the ability of the United States to get its financial house in order. After the market closed Monday Fitch Ratings announced it has revised its outlook on the US credit rating from “stable” to “negative.”
“The Negative Outlook reflects Fitch’s declining confidence that timely fiscal measures necessary to place U.S. public finances on a sustainable path and secure the U.S. ‘AAA’ sovereign rating will be forthcoming,” Fitch said in a statement.
Fitch said blame rests with the so-called congressional Supercommittee that failed to agree on spending cuts and tax increases to help reduce the nation’s deficit.
“By postponing the difficult decisions on tax and spending until after forthcoming Congressional and Presidential elections, the scale and pace of required deficit reduction will consequently be greater.”
Fitch maintained its AAA rating on US debt and indicated the risks of a downgrade appear minimal. The other credit ratings agencies, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, also left their AAA ratings unchanged.
“The Negative Outlook reflects Fitch’s declining confidence that timely fiscal measures necessary to place U.S. public finances on a sustainable path and secure the U.S. ‘AAA’ sovereign rating will be forthcoming,” Fitch said in a statement.
Fitch said blame rests with the so-called congressional Supercommittee that failed to agree on spending cuts and tax increases to help reduce the nation’s deficit.
“By postponing the difficult decisions on tax and spending until after forthcoming Congressional and Presidential elections, the scale and pace of required deficit reduction will consequently be greater.”
Fitch maintained its AAA rating on US debt and indicated the risks of a downgrade appear minimal. The other credit ratings agencies, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, also left their AAA ratings unchanged.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
My Plan is the Ryan Plan... Said former Utah Gov . Huntsman
"My plan for debt spending is the Ryan plan," said former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a 2012 hopeful, referring to the president's task force. "I think what Ryan is talking about with $6.2 trillion cut out of the budget over 10 years is exactly where the country needs to be."
The New Hamshire Union-Leader Endorses Newt.
From today’s front-page editorial:
"America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.
"He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again."
"America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.
"He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again."
Mr. President Please Read This!
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong."
Walter Williams
Walter Williams
Obama's Socialism in God's Name
Obama's Socialism in God's Name
Ed Kaitz
Jeremiah Wright's longtime congregant Barack Obama wants to tell you what God desires for America. At a recent speech in Washington, the president proclaimed that "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." Obama's rather tired revelation however is worth considering for several reasons.
First, Obama's White House spokesman Jay Carney seems to have squirmed a bit when trying to unpack the president's somewhat confusing proclamation. When challenged by reporters about the propriety of bringing God into the current political fray Carney responded by saying:
I believe that the phrase from the Bible is 'the Lord helps those who help themselves.
The trouble with Carney's response is that it is simply wrong. The phrase is not biblical in origin, and more importantly, the president said nothing about people who "help themselves." The president in other words wants the federal government to expand in size, scope, and power in order to put certain constituencies back to work.
Carney seemed to realize this philosophical dilemma -- but how could he not? Weeks earlier the president had thundered at a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser that if he were to lose the 2012 election Americans would be cast adrift and unable to help themselves:
The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, "You are on your own."
Stepping back then from his earlier statement that "the Lord helps those who help themselves," Carney played it safe with a conclusion more socialist-friendly:
I think the point the president is making is that, you know, we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people.
Simply put, anything smacking of self-reliance doesn't have much of a shelf-life in this administration. The purported constitutional scholar in the Oval Office has no grasp of the underpinnings of that document in a decidedly different concept of God's desires for us.
The philosopher Eric Hoffer once noted that the very identity of America itself was fashioned by those who actually enjoyed being on their own:
The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.
Hoffer was clearly channeling the exceptional energy created some three hundred years earlier by America's honorary "Founding Grandfather" John Locke. Although an Englishman, Locke's notions of self-reliance, limited and divided government, free trade, prosperity, industry, and justified rebellion inspired intelligent and responsible civic-republicans from our own Founding Fathers as well as to supporters of the contemporary Tea Party.
Locke, in his 1690 publication of the Second Treatise of Government, provided the most compelling modern standard for making an informed judgment about whether a country's elected officials have betrayed their trust. The last thing Obama's handlers should be doing is encouraging voters to revisit Locke's Second Treatise -- a book whose subtitle could have been "God Bless America."
Indeed, Locke's Second Treatise is a small but powerful book that should be within easy reach of all concerned Americans. (Its text can be found here and here, gratis.) In the first part of the Treatise, Locke wants to show that in the "state of nature" prior to any civil government men are usually reasonable enough to get along fairly well. Locke details the plethora of ways for example that small farmers cultivate, trade, and expand their property. Money is invented in order to eliminate spoilage and generate surpluses for exchange.
Locke's objective in describing this fully functioning and government-free "state of nature" is twofold: First, he wants to demonstrate that men can actually rule themselves quite well without government (i.e., they can "help themselves"); and Second, Locke wants to show that self-reliance, industry, talent and free trade constitute the precise qualities that God wants for us to employ in order to solve life's most basic problem: self-preservation.
In other words, if men decide to do the opposite and create governments that promote dependency, class warfare, resentment, and envy then our attempts to solve the problem of economic scarcity will fail, thus violating God's most basic command: preserve thyself.
For example, in section #34 of the Second Treatise Locke tells us what God really wants:
God gave the world ... to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it), not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour; if he did, 'tis plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.
Locke's genius was in realizing that nature uncultivated would promote the kind of zero/sum thinking so precious to generations of economically-dense socialists. In short, in a private property, free-market economy there is always "as good left as that already possessed" since talented, responsible, and hard-working men and women always have room to "increase" nature's bounty and establish new markets in the quest for the kind of prosperity that will benefit the entire community's standard of living.
Covetous, quarrelsome, and contentious complainers who merely desire "the benefit of another's pains" are therefore violating the natural law of self-preservation. This is precisely the point James Madison made about one hundred years later in 1787 when he warned about demagogues who would call for "improper and wicked projects" including inflating the currency, abolishing debts, and redistributing property.
Locke goes on in the Second Treatise to argue that men decide to leave the "state of nature" and establish a government precisely in order to protect their property from "quarrelsome and contentious" individuals who cannot thrive when left to themselves.
Locke warns also that unless government is divided, and unless politicians are circumscribed and issued term-limits they will tend to violate their original trust and begin to corrupt the very small-government, free market system they were established in power to protect.
The final part of Locke's Second Treatise is in many ways the most important. It establishes the proper conditions for overturning an oppressive government. Locke argues however that since the people constitute the "master" in a commonwealth and the politicians represent the "servants" a rebellion is by definition a revolt by the government against the constitution and the hard-working people who want to be left alone to prosper under its guidance.
"The greatest crime I think a man is capable of" says Locke, is someone who "lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government." To prevent this kind of political corruption Locke advises constant vigilance by courageous individuals who can show troublesome politicians "the danger and injustice" of their behavior.
Being called "terrorists" by the nation's vice president in other words pretty much indicates that Locke's Tea Party progeny are fulfilling their constitutional (and arguably divine) function.
Locke's Second Treatise then can be seen as one brilliant man's attempt to demonstrate that God favors those who create the optimal conditions for personal initiative and self-reliance. In other words, human flourishing is impossible under conditions of big-government, socialist dependency.
A rather famous man of God, Mahatma Gandhi, once said that he looked upon "an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear" because the state tends to do "the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress."
"Welcome evermore to gods and men" agreed Emerson, "is the self-helping man."
Ed Kaitz
Jeremiah Wright's longtime congregant Barack Obama wants to tell you what God desires for America. At a recent speech in Washington, the president proclaimed that "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." Obama's rather tired revelation however is worth considering for several reasons.
First, Obama's White House spokesman Jay Carney seems to have squirmed a bit when trying to unpack the president's somewhat confusing proclamation. When challenged by reporters about the propriety of bringing God into the current political fray Carney responded by saying:
I believe that the phrase from the Bible is 'the Lord helps those who help themselves.
The trouble with Carney's response is that it is simply wrong. The phrase is not biblical in origin, and more importantly, the president said nothing about people who "help themselves." The president in other words wants the federal government to expand in size, scope, and power in order to put certain constituencies back to work.
Carney seemed to realize this philosophical dilemma -- but how could he not? Weeks earlier the president had thundered at a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser that if he were to lose the 2012 election Americans would be cast adrift and unable to help themselves:
The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, "You are on your own."
Stepping back then from his earlier statement that "the Lord helps those who help themselves," Carney played it safe with a conclusion more socialist-friendly:
I think the point the president is making is that, you know, we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people.
Simply put, anything smacking of self-reliance doesn't have much of a shelf-life in this administration. The purported constitutional scholar in the Oval Office has no grasp of the underpinnings of that document in a decidedly different concept of God's desires for us.
The philosopher Eric Hoffer once noted that the very identity of America itself was fashioned by those who actually enjoyed being on their own:
The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.
Hoffer was clearly channeling the exceptional energy created some three hundred years earlier by America's honorary "Founding Grandfather" John Locke. Although an Englishman, Locke's notions of self-reliance, limited and divided government, free trade, prosperity, industry, and justified rebellion inspired intelligent and responsible civic-republicans from our own Founding Fathers as well as to supporters of the contemporary Tea Party.
Locke, in his 1690 publication of the Second Treatise of Government, provided the most compelling modern standard for making an informed judgment about whether a country's elected officials have betrayed their trust. The last thing Obama's handlers should be doing is encouraging voters to revisit Locke's Second Treatise -- a book whose subtitle could have been "God Bless America."
Indeed, Locke's Second Treatise is a small but powerful book that should be within easy reach of all concerned Americans. (Its text can be found here and here, gratis.) In the first part of the Treatise, Locke wants to show that in the "state of nature" prior to any civil government men are usually reasonable enough to get along fairly well. Locke details the plethora of ways for example that small farmers cultivate, trade, and expand their property. Money is invented in order to eliminate spoilage and generate surpluses for exchange.
Locke's objective in describing this fully functioning and government-free "state of nature" is twofold: First, he wants to demonstrate that men can actually rule themselves quite well without government (i.e., they can "help themselves"); and Second, Locke wants to show that self-reliance, industry, talent and free trade constitute the precise qualities that God wants for us to employ in order to solve life's most basic problem: self-preservation.
In other words, if men decide to do the opposite and create governments that promote dependency, class warfare, resentment, and envy then our attempts to solve the problem of economic scarcity will fail, thus violating God's most basic command: preserve thyself.
For example, in section #34 of the Second Treatise Locke tells us what God really wants:
God gave the world ... to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it), not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour; if he did, 'tis plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.
Locke's genius was in realizing that nature uncultivated would promote the kind of zero/sum thinking so precious to generations of economically-dense socialists. In short, in a private property, free-market economy there is always "as good left as that already possessed" since talented, responsible, and hard-working men and women always have room to "increase" nature's bounty and establish new markets in the quest for the kind of prosperity that will benefit the entire community's standard of living.
Covetous, quarrelsome, and contentious complainers who merely desire "the benefit of another's pains" are therefore violating the natural law of self-preservation. This is precisely the point James Madison made about one hundred years later in 1787 when he warned about demagogues who would call for "improper and wicked projects" including inflating the currency, abolishing debts, and redistributing property.
Locke goes on in the Second Treatise to argue that men decide to leave the "state of nature" and establish a government precisely in order to protect their property from "quarrelsome and contentious" individuals who cannot thrive when left to themselves.
Locke warns also that unless government is divided, and unless politicians are circumscribed and issued term-limits they will tend to violate their original trust and begin to corrupt the very small-government, free market system they were established in power to protect.
The final part of Locke's Second Treatise is in many ways the most important. It establishes the proper conditions for overturning an oppressive government. Locke argues however that since the people constitute the "master" in a commonwealth and the politicians represent the "servants" a rebellion is by definition a revolt by the government against the constitution and the hard-working people who want to be left alone to prosper under its guidance.
"The greatest crime I think a man is capable of" says Locke, is someone who "lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government." To prevent this kind of political corruption Locke advises constant vigilance by courageous individuals who can show troublesome politicians "the danger and injustice" of their behavior.
Being called "terrorists" by the nation's vice president in other words pretty much indicates that Locke's Tea Party progeny are fulfilling their constitutional (and arguably divine) function.
Locke's Second Treatise then can be seen as one brilliant man's attempt to demonstrate that God favors those who create the optimal conditions for personal initiative and self-reliance. In other words, human flourishing is impossible under conditions of big-government, socialist dependency.
A rather famous man of God, Mahatma Gandhi, once said that he looked upon "an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear" because the state tends to do "the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress."
"Welcome evermore to gods and men" agreed Emerson, "is the self-helping man."
Quote of the Day
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Qoute of the Day
“Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference." - Secretary of Defense Gates in at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, blasting America’s European allies for lacking the military resources to carry out the Libyan intervention they so ardently sought.
Gov Perry Likely to Announce Soon
With the implosion of the Gingrich campaign this week Texas Governor Rick Perry is said to be likely to announce soon. Now that his political wing men, Dave Carney and Rob Johnson are freed up and headed back to Austin. Gov. Perry would be the Tea Party favorite. He is the anti-establishment republican candidate verses, the current front runner, Mitt Romney the classic establishment candidate. Gov. Perry would be a good contrast to President Obama. Gov. Perry is known as a straight talker. He does not hold back. He will tell you like it is. While President Obama tries to nuance and pars every word and statement. Obama will say one thing one day then the next day have his spokesman tell you something different. This coming announcement of Gov. Perry is what the republicans needed. This will add the excitement and give the primary voters some clear viable choices. We will now have two and possibly choices, Romney, Pawlenty, and Perry, who could actually have a chance at beating Obama is 2012.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Why are Gas Prices so HIGH? - Part 2 - Obama's Energy Policy to Blame
Why are gas prices so HIGH? Is Obama's energy policies to blame? Yes in large part President Obama's energy policies are a big culprit in the current energy problems we are having as a nation. People say that Republicans are the party of big oil because they want to keep the tax incentives for the oil companies. Well losing those incentives will not cause the oil companies to lower the price of oil. The Dem's are playing a game of bait and switch. They know their policies are in large part to blame for the high gas prices so they are trying to create another issue to switch the public's attention away from them. Those incentives the oil companies have are the same ones all U.S. manufacturers have. They were put in place to encourage the growth and expansion of U.S. domestic jobs. If we remove those incentives those domestic American jobs may move off shore, but the Dem's wont mention that fact!
No the real culprit and cause of the high gas prices is his eminence Barack Hussein Obama. He would rather buy oil from foreign countries like Brazil and subsidize them for doing it. Then to subsidize American oil companies for drilling here. The President has just handed over $2 billion in American taxpayer money to Brazil's government owned oil company for them to produce oil for U.S. consumption. So let me get this straight, President Obama is for subsidizing Brazil's oil company, but he is against subsidizing America's oil companies. President Obama says we need to get off foreign oil, and then he gives $2 billion to Brazil so we can buy oil from them. Mr President oil from Brazil is still foreign oil! The Dem's see no problem in subsidizing Brazil's oil production but it is the worst thing in the world to subsidize America's oil companies.
Yet another factor in high gas prices is President Obama's draconian moratorium on off shore drilling. This has crippled domestic oil production. One of his first actions as President was to cancel 77 energy leases. President Obama has cut new energy leases in the U.S. by more than 60%! As a result of this baffling policy we have fewer American jobs, less domestically supplied energy and we now rely even more on foreign oil. Great job Mr. President, I say that very sarcastically. Also in addition to the above mentioned acts of this President he has also created a massive and hostile regulatory environment.
If the President would get rid of the hostile regulatory environment, and start issuing leases at a fast pace again. The big oil companies would reinvest those huge profits right here in America. That would create thousands of American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead thanks to Obama' energy policies the big oil companies are looking outside of the U.S. to invest their record profits. These Obama policies make it harder for the 'little guy' to make it. Yet the Dem's cynically profess to be on the side of the 'little guy'. I think Obama's Energy Secretary summed up his energy policy the best when he said "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Well Mr. President we are almost their.
Related Posts:
Why are Gas Prices so HIGH?
Obama the Red Tape and New Regulation President
Obama Encourages Brazil to Drill for Oil
No the real culprit and cause of the high gas prices is his eminence Barack Hussein Obama. He would rather buy oil from foreign countries like Brazil and subsidize them for doing it. Then to subsidize American oil companies for drilling here. The President has just handed over $2 billion in American taxpayer money to Brazil's government owned oil company for them to produce oil for U.S. consumption. So let me get this straight, President Obama is for subsidizing Brazil's oil company, but he is against subsidizing America's oil companies. President Obama says we need to get off foreign oil, and then he gives $2 billion to Brazil so we can buy oil from them. Mr President oil from Brazil is still foreign oil! The Dem's see no problem in subsidizing Brazil's oil production but it is the worst thing in the world to subsidize America's oil companies.
Yet another factor in high gas prices is President Obama's draconian moratorium on off shore drilling. This has crippled domestic oil production. One of his first actions as President was to cancel 77 energy leases. President Obama has cut new energy leases in the U.S. by more than 60%! As a result of this baffling policy we have fewer American jobs, less domestically supplied energy and we now rely even more on foreign oil. Great job Mr. President, I say that very sarcastically. Also in addition to the above mentioned acts of this President he has also created a massive and hostile regulatory environment.
If the President would get rid of the hostile regulatory environment, and start issuing leases at a fast pace again. The big oil companies would reinvest those huge profits right here in America. That would create thousands of American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead thanks to Obama' energy policies the big oil companies are looking outside of the U.S. to invest their record profits. These Obama policies make it harder for the 'little guy' to make it. Yet the Dem's cynically profess to be on the side of the 'little guy'. I think Obama's Energy Secretary summed up his energy policy the best when he said "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Well Mr. President we are almost their.
Related Posts:
Why are Gas Prices so HIGH?
Obama the Red Tape and New Regulation President
Obama Encourages Brazil to Drill for Oil
Quote of the Day
"the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" - Benjamin Franklin - June 28, 1787
Monday, June 6, 2011
Quote of the Day
"Freedom is the natural condition of the human race, in which the Almighty intended men to live. Those who fight the purpose of the Almighty will not succeed. They always have been, they always will be beaten." - President Abraham Lincoln
Union Violence
The big labor unions are resorting to intimidation and in some cases violence to keep up or hide their corrupt practices. Just last month the New York Daily News reported that a small group of union whistle blowers and members of the Communications Workers of America reported a time sheet padding scheme. One of the whistle blowers was beaten so severely by a union thug he suffered two herniated discs and had to undergo knee surgery. Another whistle blower found a dead rat in his locker along with a note saying he would be "taken care of". Yet another whistle blower stated he was told: "If I continue to complain about their finances, they would have me killed." The sad fact is nearly everyday union workers face death threats, harassment, vandalism and bodily harm if they dare defy the dictates of union officials.
Union bosses and official think they are above the law thanks to the notorious Supreme Court Enmons decision. For decades union bosses and their underlings have committed thousands of reported incidents of violence, extortion, vandalism and even murder. Ever since the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Enmons decision, union bosses have been granted immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." This Supreme court decision has effectively tied the hands of law enforcement officials and allowed the Union bosses and their hand picked 'enforcers' to use whatever means necessary to achieve union goals. There is a movement out to end this outrageous loophole. It is called the Freedom From Union Violence Act. If you are interested I would suggest you contact your congressmen and Senator and urge them to support this act.
Related Post:
Union Death Threats in Wisconsin
Union bosses and official think they are above the law thanks to the notorious Supreme Court Enmons decision. For decades union bosses and their underlings have committed thousands of reported incidents of violence, extortion, vandalism and even murder. Ever since the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Enmons decision, union bosses have been granted immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." This Supreme court decision has effectively tied the hands of law enforcement officials and allowed the Union bosses and their hand picked 'enforcers' to use whatever means necessary to achieve union goals. There is a movement out to end this outrageous loophole. It is called the Freedom From Union Violence Act. If you are interested I would suggest you contact your congressmen and Senator and urge them to support this act.
Related Post:
Union Death Threats in Wisconsin
Sunday, June 5, 2011
92% of Americans still believe in God
92% of Americans still believe in God according to a recent survey by Gallup. That is just down slightly from when Gallup started asking the question back in the 1940's. The percentage drops to below 90% for easterners, liberals, and the 18 to 29 age bracket. No surprise that less liberals than conservatives believe in God. A belief in God among conservatives is almost universal. Below is the chart from Gallup with the break down among the different groups:
I am not surprised by these results, in fact I am encouraged so many people still believe in God in America. That means there is still hope for our country.
I am not surprised by these results, in fact I am encouraged so many people still believe in God in America. That means there is still hope for our country.
Unknown Space Station on Mars?!
David Martines says he discoverd a "space station" on mars. What do you think?
Quote of the Day
"Nonviolence in the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Union Death Threats in Wisconsin!
There are reports of union death threats to Wisconsin state legislatures that voted against union interests and with Gov. Scott Walker. "We will hunt you down . . . slit your throats . . . drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers. That is just going too far. For this person to threaten an other's life over whether a union can force members to give dues or not is going to a dangerous extreme. There were literally dozens of similar recorded death threats along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Scott Walker for not going along with what the union's wanted.
I can understand some of the disappointment and anger directed at the republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature and Gov. Walker. To me they handled the union situation and legislation the wrong way. They had the right intentions but could have done a better job of explaining, persuading, passing and now implementation of their sweeping state union reform legislation. If they had, they could of avoided some of the back lash. That being said, it still is no excuse for the vile death threats coming from the left directed to the Wisconsin republicans. Even more ominous, the Wisconsin State Journal reported police found "dozens of rounds of live ammunition outside the Capitol" during the height of the Wisconsin protests. This find along with the millions of dollars of damage done to the Wisconsin state capitol building shows how violent the left can get. And they accuse the Tea Party of violence, give me a break!
Related Post:
Is Gov. Walker of Wis. a Republican Obama?
I can understand some of the disappointment and anger directed at the republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature and Gov. Walker. To me they handled the union situation and legislation the wrong way. They had the right intentions but could have done a better job of explaining, persuading, passing and now implementation of their sweeping state union reform legislation. If they had, they could of avoided some of the back lash. That being said, it still is no excuse for the vile death threats coming from the left directed to the Wisconsin republicans. Even more ominous, the Wisconsin State Journal reported police found "dozens of rounds of live ammunition outside the Capitol" during the height of the Wisconsin protests. This find along with the millions of dollars of damage done to the Wisconsin state capitol building shows how violent the left can get. And they accuse the Tea Party of violence, give me a break!
Related Post:
Is Gov. Walker of Wis. a Republican Obama?
Saturday, June 4, 2011
97 to 0 Senate Votes Down Obama's 2012 Budget!
97 to 0 the U.S. Senate voted down President Obama's 2012 budget! If that is not making a statement of disapproval of this President's fiscal policies I don't know what is! This is unprecedented. The President could not even get one vote of approval for his 2012 budget. This shows the dramatic lack of leadership ability this President possesses. This was a huge slap in the face for Obama. A sitting President can not even get any support from even his own party for his own budget. This was the budget, if you remember, that was supposed to be the end all, the solution, his great idea to fix the countries problems. His alternative to the Tea Parties philosophy on the budget. WOW! is all I can say. What a joke of presidential leadership. President Obama's own party members are deserting him like flies in the Senate. Mr. President wake up and smell reality. The public rejected your philosophy of governance in the fall elections. The democratically controlled U.S. Senate has now rejected your idea's and priorities for the 2012 budget. Mr President it is time for some real change. Mr. President "yes we can" vote you out!
Friday, June 3, 2011
Principles Of Americanism
The principle of the Sovereignty of the People is one of the key principles of what I call Americanism. You have distinctive forms of government around the world. You have Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Dictatorships, you have so called Theocracies in the Middle East. I propose Americas form and attitude of governance is peculiar to her. I suggest no other country in the world has ever had such a form or governance and spirit of independence as has America. In America the principle of the Sovereignty of the People is recognized by customs and proclaimed by our laws. It arrives unimpeded to the remotest parts of our land. This principle can be studied and seen in the affairs of the country. Example, the sovereign will of the people can be seen and expressed in the elections of our representatives. If we feel our sovereign rights are not being protected we will exercises our rights and vote the members of government we perceive to be in error out. In America all power comes from the hands of the people and we submit and trust that power to the hands of the elected government. If they break that trust they are not usually long in office. The people participate in the making of our laws by the choosing of our legislatures. We participate in the execution of our laws by the choosing of our executives. The people are the sovereigns of the political world in America. The power of all elected officials ultimately originates of the people, by the people and for the people. Let us guard earnestly this principle of Americanism and when it is threatened let us defend it!
Land/Home Ownership Creates a More Responsible Citizenry
The right to own property is fundamental to a free society. Freedom is promoted by ownership of private property only when ownership rights are enforced by law. Eminent Domain needs to be looked at again. It is being used to widely and for frivolous reasons. A society that does not treat ownership rights as sacred is a society starting to loose some of its freedoms. History shows us that land ownership requirements for voting tends to lead to more stable societies. I am not saying we should go back to this requirement, I am just pointing out the obvious observation. Land ownership leads to more interest in how the big picture of the country is. Whereas no land ownership (no stake in societies responsibilities of paying property taxes and maintaining the land and desiring to see it increase in value) leads to voters who are easily swayed by the promises or the whims of the moment i.e. "Yes we can". Both political parties should be trying to promote responsible land (home) ownership. Promote responsible uses of ones monetary resources. Promote and emphasize the necessity for all to have tangible assets of some kind, so all can have a stake in society. With some hard work and a little wisdom the average American can achieve home ownership and in so doing will become a more responsible member of the electorate. A course in personal finance and macroeconomics should be requirements for all students before completion of High School. This would lead to more financially knowledgeable citizens and a more stable republic
Why are Gas Prices so HIGH?
What is causing gas prices to get so high? At first glance the April retail sales seemed to be good news. They are 7.6% higher than last year. So what is driving the increase? Unfortunately it is higher gas station sales, which are due to higher gas prices. Gas station sales are up a staggering 21.8% over last year! Higher prices are painful, but they do encourage greater consumer spending. Especially on something that is a necessity like gasoline. If you think gas will be $4.50 next week you will very quickly fill your tank up with the $4.00 a gallon gas this week.
Filling up at the pump is causing American consumer's increasing pain in the pocket book. Just when you think gas prices are going down they shoot back up again. The rising cost in crude oil, and the increasing cost in refining are helping to cause the increase in gas prices. But at the same time the big oil companies are reporting record profits. They are being accused of price gauging by the Democrats. So what is really going on here. What is really causing gas prices to get so high?
What we pay for in a gallon of gas: all figures below are approximations
Crude Oil - 55%
Refining - 22%
Taxes - 19%
Distribution & Marketing - 4%
The biggest culprit in the rising cost of gas is the rising cost of crude oil. With crude oil trading over $100 a barrel gas prices will continue to be high. Another big factor in the price of gas is the refining costs. Our country needs more refineries. These factors account for part of the reason gas is so high. Big oil companies make the bulk of their money by producing crude oil. They invest in oil fields with the expectation of making a profit at lets say $30 a barrel. When oil hits $100 a barrel the rest is just pure profit to them. This is kinda like a farmer who plants a crop with the expectation of making a profit at lets say $1.25 a bushel. If the market starts trading at $3.00 a bushel he is not going to sell if for cheaper. He is just going to keep the profit and be thankful for the good market price of his crop. The farmer is not price gauging, he is just selling his product at market price. This is what the oil companies are doing. They are selling their product at market price.
So who sets the market price on oil? The global market does. The increasing demand for oil, much more than just ten years ago is helping to create higher crude oil prices. China and India are growing their economies and dramatically increasing their demand for oil. With the demand for oil growing quite steadily, and a middle eastern supply system that is very unstable, you have a recipe for high oil prices.
So what if we opened up ANWR to drilling? That would add to the global oil supply, estimated by the Energy Department, about 1 million barrels of oil a day. That is almost, for example, what Iraq produces each day. This would help increase the global supply of oil and in turn bring prices down some. But even if this were to be allowed to start today it would be years before this new supply would hit the markets. Drivers in other countries have it worse. They are still paying more in European countries. Oil rich countries on the other hand are paying less than a dollar a gallon.
Finally Obama's energy policy is in large part to blame for high gas prices. Find out more about this in part two of this post to follow later.
Related Posts:
Inflation - Thanks Obama!
Taxes on Miles we Drive
7 ways to Save Money at the Pump
Rising Gas Prices/Declining Dollar
Filling up at the pump is causing American consumer's increasing pain in the pocket book. Just when you think gas prices are going down they shoot back up again. The rising cost in crude oil, and the increasing cost in refining are helping to cause the increase in gas prices. But at the same time the big oil companies are reporting record profits. They are being accused of price gauging by the Democrats. So what is really going on here. What is really causing gas prices to get so high?
What we pay for in a gallon of gas: all figures below are approximations
Crude Oil - 55%
Refining - 22%
Taxes - 19%
Distribution & Marketing - 4%
The biggest culprit in the rising cost of gas is the rising cost of crude oil. With crude oil trading over $100 a barrel gas prices will continue to be high. Another big factor in the price of gas is the refining costs. Our country needs more refineries. These factors account for part of the reason gas is so high. Big oil companies make the bulk of their money by producing crude oil. They invest in oil fields with the expectation of making a profit at lets say $30 a barrel. When oil hits $100 a barrel the rest is just pure profit to them. This is kinda like a farmer who plants a crop with the expectation of making a profit at lets say $1.25 a bushel. If the market starts trading at $3.00 a bushel he is not going to sell if for cheaper. He is just going to keep the profit and be thankful for the good market price of his crop. The farmer is not price gauging, he is just selling his product at market price. This is what the oil companies are doing. They are selling their product at market price.
So who sets the market price on oil? The global market does. The increasing demand for oil, much more than just ten years ago is helping to create higher crude oil prices. China and India are growing their economies and dramatically increasing their demand for oil. With the demand for oil growing quite steadily, and a middle eastern supply system that is very unstable, you have a recipe for high oil prices.
So what if we opened up ANWR to drilling? That would add to the global oil supply, estimated by the Energy Department, about 1 million barrels of oil a day. That is almost, for example, what Iraq produces each day. This would help increase the global supply of oil and in turn bring prices down some. But even if this were to be allowed to start today it would be years before this new supply would hit the markets. Drivers in other countries have it worse. They are still paying more in European countries. Oil rich countries on the other hand are paying less than a dollar a gallon.
Finally Obama's energy policy is in large part to blame for high gas prices. Find out more about this in part two of this post to follow later.
Related Posts:
Inflation - Thanks Obama!
Taxes on Miles we Drive
7 ways to Save Money at the Pump
Rising Gas Prices/Declining Dollar
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Senator Schumer says Palestinians and Arabs “don’t believe there should be an Israel.”
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Palestinians and Arabs “don’t believe there should be an Israel.” Wow an intelligent, logical and correct statement actually came out of the mouth of Chuck Schumer. Maybe that preacher was just a few days off, I think the end of the world might happen now after I heard what Sen. Schumer said. It is incredible he said it, but not surprising hardly any coverage about it on the 'state run media' networks. Schumer made this statement at a Jewish function this past Sunday: "The reason there is no peace in the Middle East is very simple. It’s because the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Arabs don’t believe there should be an Israel. It’s that simple. Anyone who tries to figure out a way to solve this conflict without realizing that truth will never get anywhere." A democrat actually speaking the truth simply and forthrightly, may wonders never cease. Well all I can say to that is hopefully the rest of the Democratic party wakes up to this reality. Better late than never to face the facts. I wonder if the rest of his Democratic colleagues think he is turning to the dark side. This may be the only thing Schumer has ever said that I agree with. However, the reality is that Schumer has had multiple opportunities over the years to say this very thing. It took the boldness and honesty of Prime Minister Netanyahu to make Schumer publicly utter the obvious….Arabs and Palestinians want the DESTRUCTION of the state of Israel. They want Jerusalem, and then the complete removal of any “Israeli State”. The Progressives agree with them. Someone needs to tell Obama that Schumer has faced reality and now it is his turn. I bet Obama could not believe his ears when he heard it. Sen. Schumer must have missed the talking points teleconference this week. Now we just need for Sen. Schumer to lean on President Obama to support Israel. The U.S. needs to make the support and the safety of Israel a priority again.
Related Post:
Netanyahu Confronts Obama about Pre 1967 Israel Borders
Related Post:
Netanyahu Confronts Obama about Pre 1967 Israel Borders
Quote of the Day
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity of public trust, and in the best type of citizenship." - President Grover Cleveland
Quote of the Day
"And may that being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessings upon the nation." - President John Adams
Monday, May 30, 2011
Memorial Day
Today is the day we honor those who have fought to give us our freedoms. Our freedom of religion. our freedom of speech, our freedom to assemble, our freedom to disagree publicly with anyone, and the list goes on and on. We need to thank our soldiers, our fighting men and women, for giving us these freedoms we so often take for granted. We should not take them for granted though. For when we do, we are disrespecting the fallen heroes who fought to give them to us. Because as the saying goes 'Freedom is not free'. Contemplate on the meaning of freedom, and be thankful you live in America where you have it. Be thankful on Memorial Day.
Quote of the Day
"There comes a time when you've used your brains, your training, your technical skill, and the die is cast and the events are in the hands of God, and there you have to leave them." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Obama the Red Tape, New Regulation, Federal Government Growing President
Under President Obama the amount of governmental red tape and new regulations has grown at an unprecedented pace. If it continues he will have increased the size of government more than any other president in history. In 2010 Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. With the enactment of the new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for more rule making in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even more in the coming years. The hidden tax, is what they call the cost of all these new regulations, rules, restrictions, and mandates puts a heavy economic burden on Americans and the U.S. economy. The actual costs to Americans of all these new regulations is likely to be much higher. Because the agencies themselves are allowed to make the initial calculations, thereby casting their proposals in the best light. The OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs conducted ex ante analyses of regulations to test the accuracy of cost-benefit estimates. The study determined that regulators underestimated costs 34 percent of the time. No surprise there. Even more moronically the EPA is prohibited by law from considering costs in devising regulations under the Clean Air Act and other major environmental laws. Thus, the agency recently set new, more stringent standards on emissions of nitrogen dioxide without formally considering the economic or technical feasibility of compliance. If we care about growing business and jobs in this county shouldn't we consider the economic cost of new EPA regulations before implementing them? Finally it has to be noted that annual compliance costs constitute only part of the economic burden of new regulation. New rules also entail start-up costs for new equipment, conversions of industrial processes, and creating new data collection and reporting procedures. There are even more rules on the way. Obama is not done yet. According to one estimate, financial regulation legislation recently passed by Congress, the Dodd–Frank bill, will require 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. This bill is so huge and far reaching in its authority it needs to be repealed by the next president. The Dodd-Frank bill gives the federal government way to much power. 2010 was a record setting year for new federal regulations, but 2011 is set to shatter that record. This growth in federal regulation puts increasingly more financial burdens on the country and economy. This is the worst time to place more burdens on a economy that is already struggling. Constantly growing the size and power of government is not the answer. Limited government with more power and more wealth in the hands of the citizenry is the answer.
The Home Depot Promotes the Homosexual Agenda
For years now The Home Depot has given its financial and corporate support to open displays on homosexual activism on the main streets of America. Instead of remaining neutral on the subject, The Home Depot has chosen to sponsor and participate in numerous gay pride parades and festivals through out the country. The goal of every homosexual organization supported by The Home Depot is to legalize gay marriage. Stephen Holmes a senior manager for The Home Depot said " At the end of the day here, we're not going to send anything out that forbids our associated to be involved in these festivals in any way." A glimpse of The Home Depot's record in supporting the homosexual agenda is as follows: June 2010 The Home Depot set up Kids Workshop at several homosexual festivals and parades, GLAAD ( a politically active gay group) announced on its web site that The Home Depot has agreed to match all contributions made by company employees, In 2008 the company sponsored Durham Pride Weekend, activities at this festival included messages for couples and drag shows. This is anti logical to me. How does supporting these left of center, cultural left, and out right just plain wrong activities increase the brand awareness or goodwill of this company. If I were a stock holder of this company I would be outraged, then I would quickly sell my shares. The sponsoring of these events is not a plus for the business growth of this company. I am sure they have lost customers and some market share because of it. The executives of this company are supposed to be promoting its growth and overall goodwill to the majority of its potential customers. Instead the sponsorship of these activities flies in the face of the majority of its customers to generate goodwill in a segment of the population that is less that 10% of its total potential customer base. The support of these activities by The Home Depot is not just morally wrong, but it is very bad business practices as well.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Eric Cantor (R-VA) explains to AIPAC which Party really Supports Israel
The following our excerpts from Rep. Eric Cantor's speech to AIPAC on May 23. When Rep. Cantor was announced to give his speech his applause far outweighed what the President received:
Here is what he said about the issue of Iran’s fundamental threat:
Yet today the two-thousand-year-old dream of the state of Israel is in jeopardy. There is no other nation on Earth so routinely denied its right to exist and threatened with destruction. Recent developments in the region have moved Iran out of the headlines, but it is undeniable: the specter of a nuclear Iran looms larger than ever.We must never take our eye off Iran. And that’s why Congress will soon pass the bipartisan Iran Threat Reduction Act, making it official U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Plain and simple, if you do business with Iran, you cannot do business with America. It is not okay to vilify Israel. It is not okay to demonize Jews. And it’s time to stop scapegoating Israel.
Here is what he said about Abbas Leader of the Palestians:
Stop naming public squares and athletic teams after suicide bombers. And come to the negotiating table when you have prepared your people to fore go hatred and renounce terrorism — and Israel will embrace you. Until that day, there can be no peace with Hamas. Peace at any price isn’t peace; it’s surrender.
Here is what he said about the issue of the Palenstian threat to Israel:
In order for us to win this great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel. [Palestinian culture is] the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the ’67 lines. And until Israel’s enemies come to terms with this reality, a true peace will be impossible … If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state.
Alluding to the president, Cantor then said that friendship between Israel and the U.S. has to be based on reality, “not just on rhetoric.” While words come and go, “only deeds count.” And with another slap at the president, he remarked: “Now is the time to lead … from the front.”
Related Post:
Netenyahu Confronts Obama about pre 1967 Borders
Here is what he said about the issue of Iran’s fundamental threat:
Yet today the two-thousand-year-old dream of the state of Israel is in jeopardy. There is no other nation on Earth so routinely denied its right to exist and threatened with destruction. Recent developments in the region have moved Iran out of the headlines, but it is undeniable: the specter of a nuclear Iran looms larger than ever.We must never take our eye off Iran. And that’s why Congress will soon pass the bipartisan Iran Threat Reduction Act, making it official U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Plain and simple, if you do business with Iran, you cannot do business with America. It is not okay to vilify Israel. It is not okay to demonize Jews. And it’s time to stop scapegoating Israel.
Here is what he said about Abbas Leader of the Palestians:
Stop naming public squares and athletic teams after suicide bombers. And come to the negotiating table when you have prepared your people to fore go hatred and renounce terrorism — and Israel will embrace you. Until that day, there can be no peace with Hamas. Peace at any price isn’t peace; it’s surrender.
Here is what he said about the issue of the Palenstian threat to Israel:
In order for us to win this great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel. [Palestinian culture is] the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the ’67 lines. And until Israel’s enemies come to terms with this reality, a true peace will be impossible … If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state.
Alluding to the president, Cantor then said that friendship between Israel and the U.S. has to be based on reality, “not just on rhetoric.” While words come and go, “only deeds count.” And with another slap at the president, he remarked: “Now is the time to lead … from the front.”
Related Post:
Netenyahu Confronts Obama about pre 1967 Borders
President Rick Perry?
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he would consider jumping into the race for the Republican nomination for president. Sarah Palin also announced an east coast bus tour along with releasing a video this week. Governor Perry would certainly shake up the field if he runs, but insiders are still doubting he will. He has already let his "Karl Rove" leave and go to work on the Huntsman campaign. Some took that as a major sign he would not be getting in, but with the lack of any clear front runner he may be reconsidering. Perry, the longest serving governor in Texas history, would be a bona fide conservative in the race for the White House. He would also certainly be the tea party favorite. Remember last year when he threatened Texas leaving the Union if the federal government kept passing, unconstitutional in his view, laws. With Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's departure from the race opened the door for a southern candidate. Mark McKinnon, a veteran political consultant who advised President George W. Bush’s campaigns, said of Perry, “The only real question is: Why wouldn’t he run?” "The candidates that are running are not the candidates that people want,” said Ryan Hecker of the Houston Tea Party Society. “They’re looking for someone, almost wistfully.” They are looking for someone like a Rick Perry or a Jeb Bush to enter the race.
In recent years, Perry has made a sport out of bashing Washington. He published a book, “Fed Up!” In the book he describes the federal government as financially reckless and out of control and calls for a resurgence of state-based power. He is definitely not for more expansion of the federal government. Instead he is for a radical reduction in the size of the federal government. This is what many primary voters are wanting to see in a candidate. Also another indicator he might jump in, he has been weighing in on matters with almost no relevance to Texas. Last week he issued a statement after President Obama's speech on Israel he said “President Obama’s speech today continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror,”. If Gov. Perry jumps in the Republican race for the White House things would get alot more interesting.
In recent years, Perry has made a sport out of bashing Washington. He published a book, “Fed Up!” In the book he describes the federal government as financially reckless and out of control and calls for a resurgence of state-based power. He is definitely not for more expansion of the federal government. Instead he is for a radical reduction in the size of the federal government. This is what many primary voters are wanting to see in a candidate. Also another indicator he might jump in, he has been weighing in on matters with almost no relevance to Texas. Last week he issued a statement after President Obama's speech on Israel he said “President Obama’s speech today continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror,”. If Gov. Perry jumps in the Republican race for the White House things would get alot more interesting.
Quote of the Day
"If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be." - Daniel Webster, June 17, 1843
What? New Poll Puts Rudy Giuliani in First Place among Republicans?
Will former NYC-mayor Rudy Giuliani make a second run for the White House? That is yet to be determined but a new poll put out by CNN has him in the lead of the pack. He is in the front of the pack followed closely by Romney and Sarah Palin. So far two out of the three in the top of the Republican field are not even running. Another survey also suggests that there is not a lot of enthusiasm about any of the major candidates. The analysis is not alot of voters have decided yet. So you can not count our former Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Speaker Gingrich, or any of the other candidates out yet. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) fanned the flames of a possible Giuliani candidacy when he told reporters that he believes the former mayor will, indeed, jump into the race. King claims that Giuliani and his team have learned from their 2008 mistakes and that New Hampshire is the key. Coincidence, Giuliani just went to New Hampshire for a republican dinner? So the question is "To be or not to be" Rudy Giuliani a presidential candidate that is. We will have to wait and see.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Quote of the Day
"The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties." - President Woodrow Wilson
*Take note of this liberals one of your historical heroes was in favor of limited government, and warning us agaist an expansion of government.*
*Take note of this liberals one of your historical heroes was in favor of limited government, and warning us agaist an expansion of government.*
Gingrich's Economic Plan - A Great Plan for Economic Growth!
"Newt Gingrich may have, to the glee of the left, been written off by everybody who's anybody on the right. But he's put forth one of the most laudable economic plans in memory" says the Editorial on the Investors Business Daily site. His audacious five point economic reform plan is by far the best put forward by any presidential candidate. The best feature of his plan is that it totally eliminates capital gains taxes, and not just reduces them. This one point alone would be real economic stimulus and cost just a small amount of government revenue. It would have the potential to create millions of jobs, and that additional tax revenue would make up what would be lost by eliminating the capital gains tax. Hong Kong became the economic power house of Asia by its elimination of capital gains taxes. Having no tax on capital would attract foreign capital into the country. New foreign capital would pour into the country, spurring economic growth. The rest of the Gingrich economic plan is just as good: a no-new-taxes pledge, full deduction of capital expenses, a huge cut in our highest-in-the-world corporate tax and abolition of the estate tax. Equally as bold, he would repeal Obama Care, abolish the National Labor Relations Board and "replace" the Environmental Protection Agency. I can not wait to say good bye to the EPA. Newt Gingrich told CNBC his plan comes straight out of "the Reagan playbook" and "would move us toward a very dramatic job growth," lessening government dependency and practicing fiscal restraint. If Newt Gingrich spends the coming months of the presidential campaign pushing this plan, and coming out with other plans as equally bold, new, and as great as these, he will be rising to the top of the field pretty quickly. This plan is that good, and that bold. It does remind one of Reagan. These kind of policy ideas will get people inspired, and start to support him. I don't think we can write of Newt yet. Especially after this bold and great economic plan.
Here we go again, More Liberal Hate Speech!
Here we go again, more liberal hate speech! This topic is becoming a regular occurrence on this site. It is because the leftist liberals keep spewing out the hate speech. I better not hear another liberal accuse a conservative of hate speech. The left have so much hate speech pent up in them it just keeps oozing out of them. So yesterday on the Ed Shultz show, Mr Shultz aid Laura Ingraham was a "right wing slut" and a "talk slut". Those are some very disrespectful things to say about a lady. Ed Schultz should not have said them, but his comments show a disturbing pattern among liberals - they are so full of hate speech. It just is hard to comprehend why they keep spewing it out. Hate speech after hate speech. Unbelievable!
Related Posts:
More Liberal Hate Speech
Bizarre Liberal Hate Speech about bin Laden Death
Michael Moore Hate Speech about bin Laden Death
Liberal Hate Speech
Related Posts:
More Liberal Hate Speech
Bizarre Liberal Hate Speech about bin Laden Death
Michael Moore Hate Speech about bin Laden Death
Liberal Hate Speech
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
How is Abortion Health care?
Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby define abortion as health care, as being morally equivalent to a tonsillectomy. On Planned Parenthood’s Web site, the very first category under Health on the navigation bar is Abortion. The abortion lobby for years has been using poll tested language to try to main stream abortion into the health care category. They call abortion "reproductive health" and now are trying to just label it as your average health care issue,as a tonsillectomy. They know if they can redefine abortion from what it is, to just another aspect of health care they will have won the debate. It will cease to be such a wide spread hot button issue and be categorized as health care by the federal government. The Americans United for Life legal team has documented cases in seven circuit courts and several federal district courts where the “mandatory categories of care” under Medicaid have been defined to include abortion. This is a disingenuous use of medicaid money.
Common sense would tell anyone that abortion is not health care. How could something, with its main objective to stop the beating of a human heart and subsequently cause that humans intentional death, be considered health care? Abortion by its very nature is the exact opposite of health care, and the abortion lobby knows this. That is why they have, for the past several years, been using their poll tested language for abortion, "reproductive health", as their new code word for abortion. So what is abortion? According to the dictionary, abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy and/or any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
So what are some of these so called "reproductive health" methods for terminating a pregnancy? During the first twelve weeks "suction abortion" is the most common technique used. Basically this procedure involves the use of a vacuum type machine used to suck the fetus out. This machine is 29 times more powerful than a common vacuum it basically tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. Another method, which used to be very popular, is saline poisoning. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.). I am literally getting sick to my stomach as I write this. Will just tell you of one more method then I have to stop, this is just too heart wrenching to write about any more. The most cruel and in human method, which is currently restricted by law, of abortion is Partial Birth Abortion. The five steps to this are: 1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps, 2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal, 3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head, 4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull, and 5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
Common sense would tell anyone that abortion is not health care. How could something, with its main objective to stop the beating of a human heart and subsequently cause that humans intentional death, be considered health care? Abortion by its very nature is the exact opposite of health care, and the abortion lobby knows this. That is why they have, for the past several years, been using their poll tested language for abortion, "reproductive health", as their new code word for abortion. So what is abortion? According to the dictionary, abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy and/or any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
So what are some of these so called "reproductive health" methods for terminating a pregnancy? During the first twelve weeks "suction abortion" is the most common technique used. Basically this procedure involves the use of a vacuum type machine used to suck the fetus out. This machine is 29 times more powerful than a common vacuum it basically tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. Another method, which used to be very popular, is saline poisoning. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.). I am literally getting sick to my stomach as I write this. Will just tell you of one more method then I have to stop, this is just too heart wrenching to write about any more. The most cruel and in human method, which is currently restricted by law, of abortion is Partial Birth Abortion. The five steps to this are: 1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps, 2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal, 3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head, 4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull, and 5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
I refer back to my original question, How can abortion be health care? Did any of this sound like health or care to you? How can anyone justify doing this? How can this be considered "a right" guaranteed by the Constitution (Roe v. Wade)? How can the members of the cultural left expect normal caring people to stand by silently while this is going on? How can they have the gall to think that they can relabel abortion as "reproductive health" and it will be OK? I end how i began. How can abortion be health care?
Related Post:
Abort Planned Parenthood Funding
Related Post:
Abort Planned Parenthood Funding
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
E.P.A. gives $25,000 to an Environmental Activist Group!
The Environmental Protection Agency gave $25,000 in taxpayer money to an environmental activist group! In 2009 a dozen environmental protesters caused a traffic jam in the middle of Chicago's financial sector. They sat down in a circle in the middle of the road to protest. They were later arrested. Some of this dozen were members of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO). Six months later this non law abiding group was awarded $25,000 from the EPA. It was called a environmental justice grant. It was to be used in a coalition with their partners to implement areas of Climate Change Mitigation. After getting the grant, a half dozen activists from LVEJO and other groups were arrested after climbing the fence to a coal-fired power plant. The EPA gives them money knowing they protest illegally, then surprise after they get the money they continue breaking laws. Who was the genius in the EPA who thought this was a good idea? Was this protest at this coal-fired plant a coincidence? Or could it have been planned or encourage by someone higher up. Remember President Obama spoke of bankrupting new coal-fired power plants. The Obama Administration’s first budget increased EPA funding to $10.3 billion, a whopping 36% over the preceding fiscal year. the EPA awarded or continues to have open more than 7,500 grants, totaling $3,847,160,250 to non-profit groups alone. This is not a good use of my tax money. This is depressing. No wonder we have a budget mess in Washington. When they are doling out money like crazy to far left, law breaking, environmental groups who just happen to be for bankrupting coal-fired plants. Just like the President is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)