Howdy all... been a while, but figured I should tell you all that I am still alive. Things are so danged hectic that once I get home each night, i don't really feel like sitting down to write anything. Well, that is until I ran across these two doozies and felt the need to share them. I make no claims about how often I will be posting, but some things just need to be shared. So here goes...
1) The first thing is the new change that is putting us all into some severe danger. That is that enemy combatants engaged in activities against our military in Afghanistan are now being read their Miranda rights as if they were American citizens being detained by the law enforcement officials within American borders! There are plenty of sites out on them there Internets discussing this and dissecting it, so I won't go in to too much detail here. It seems that some people are saying this is a policy change from the Executive branch. I don't know exactly how it started or what is behind it, but... Anyways, I did want to include some links to the stories. So here ya go.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/lawmaker-says-obama-ordered-fbi-read-rights-detainees/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/combatant-criminal-reading-miranda-rights-detainees-draws-criticism/
2) There is a new bill proposed in the House of Representatives, and this one is a bit... ahh, let's go with mind-bending. House Joint Resolution 5 (H.J. Res. 5) states: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number oterms an individual may serve as President." Now, isn't it a bit early to be looking at this since the current President isn't even 1/4 of the way through his first term? Well, since it would need to go to the states to be ratified, I can see the rush to get it through in hopes of having it ratified prior to the end of his second term... IF he is elected to a second term.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
Sometimes it makes me wonder what people are thinking...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Modern Day Robin Hood?
Ok, I have seen a number of headlines that are linking our President to Robin Hood. Y'know, take from the rich, yada yada yada...
Well, wether or not you agree with what the President is doing (I personally don't), I had to take the time to explain to people what everyone seems to be forgetting about Robin Hood.
Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, right? WRONG. Robin Hood stole from the looters and thieves who stole and got their wealth through supressing the populace and gave it to the ones unfairly taken from. This means what Robin Hood really did was: Steal from the thieves and gave to the robbed.
That is not what is going on today. Today, the government is stealing, and planning to steal more, from the rightfully rich (and even moderately well-off) to give to the undeserving poor.
Does this mean that every person who has money made it legally, fairly, and ethically? No, that is not what I am saying. Look at the Bernie Madoff scandal. Does that mean that all of the "poor" are lazy slackards that just want to suckle the public teat? No, I'm not saying that either. What I am saying is that the majority of people who have money earned it and I believe you should be able to keep what you earned. I am saying that the poor who need help should look to the charity of others instead of receiving stolen goods (aka our money).
The misconception of what Robin Hood did has bred another idea that makes what is going on "OK" to so many. That is the thought that your money is not yours. Listen to so many politicians nowadays talk and you will hear that they believe that the money is the governments and you are just "borrowing" it. Taxes are just reducing the amount of your loan instead of theft of your personal property.
When you start thinking that the government owns anything instead of being a body meant to SERVE, you start down a slippery slope that will allow the dishonest few at the top to take money, freedom, liberty, guns, property, and so much more from you because it doesn't REALLY belonwg to you, they are just taking back what they believe to be theirs.
Kinda scary when you think of it that way, isn't it?
Well, wether or not you agree with what the President is doing (I personally don't), I had to take the time to explain to people what everyone seems to be forgetting about Robin Hood.
Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, right? WRONG. Robin Hood stole from the looters and thieves who stole and got their wealth through supressing the populace and gave it to the ones unfairly taken from. This means what Robin Hood really did was: Steal from the thieves and gave to the robbed.
That is not what is going on today. Today, the government is stealing, and planning to steal more, from the rightfully rich (and even moderately well-off) to give to the undeserving poor.
Does this mean that every person who has money made it legally, fairly, and ethically? No, that is not what I am saying. Look at the Bernie Madoff scandal. Does that mean that all of the "poor" are lazy slackards that just want to suckle the public teat? No, I'm not saying that either. What I am saying is that the majority of people who have money earned it and I believe you should be able to keep what you earned. I am saying that the poor who need help should look to the charity of others instead of receiving stolen goods (aka our money).
The misconception of what Robin Hood did has bred another idea that makes what is going on "OK" to so many. That is the thought that your money is not yours. Listen to so many politicians nowadays talk and you will hear that they believe that the money is the governments and you are just "borrowing" it. Taxes are just reducing the amount of your loan instead of theft of your personal property.
When you start thinking that the government owns anything instead of being a body meant to SERVE, you start down a slippery slope that will allow the dishonest few at the top to take money, freedom, liberty, guns, property, and so much more from you because it doesn't REALLY belonwg to you, they are just taking back what they believe to be theirs.
Kinda scary when you think of it that way, isn't it?
Monday, February 23, 2009
What is the "Middle Class"?
Ok, I was poking around on the White House website, just looking at what is going on. Looking to see if there was anything new upm, etc. So I see a bit about the new Middle Class Task Force. Hmmm, ok, let's take a look.
Run by Vice-President Joe Bidet... oh um, I mean Biden. The goals of this task force are:
*Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities
*Improving work and family balance
*Restoring labor standards, including workplace safety
*Helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes
*Protecting retirement security
Hmmm, I guess this sounds ok. (Not really, but hey, I will go with it to get to my point).
Now, this is to help the Middle Class. Riddle me this... Who Are The Middle Class????
Look it up online, there is no set definition for this. For salaries it can range from 25,000/year to over 100,000/year. Now, I've never made 100k a year, but I have made 25-30k per year. I wouldn't have considered myself middle-class. I knew I wasn't poor (I was doing computer work for a free care clinic, so I got to see the truly poor), but I didn't feel like middle-class. Of course, I wasn't thinking about labels either! Now, I can imagine how much 100k/year would be. If I compared the two, I would have to say that they aren't in the same league, but we are being told that they are both the Middle Class. Ok, even if I swallowed that... Can you tell me how something that would help the person making 25k/year is going to help the 100k/year person? If they are making 100k/year they might just be doing a teeny bit better financially. But then again, the 100k/year person is paying a significantly higher amount of their income in TAXES!!! hmmm, maybe that "evens things out"..
I would have to say salary is not exactly a good indicator of social standing, but for the "average" person, I guess it works ok. I say this because as a homesteading and self-sufficiency seeking family, I can see having NO DEBT at all, and working a part time job making 25k to pay for toys and extras, but having the necessities covered. This works at the bottom and the top ends of this range.
So let's take some time, and think about what this means. Until we have a definition of terms like these, whenever the government tosses out things like the "Middle Class Task Force" can be used for whatever they want and they will just shove more into the "Middle Class". Let's make sure we are all on the same page here, folks.
Run by Vice-President Joe Bidet... oh um, I mean Biden. The goals of this task force are:
*Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities
*Improving work and family balance
*Restoring labor standards, including workplace safety
*Helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes
*Protecting retirement security
Hmmm, I guess this sounds ok. (Not really, but hey, I will go with it to get to my point).
Now, this is to help the Middle Class. Riddle me this... Who Are The Middle Class????
Look it up online, there is no set definition for this. For salaries it can range from 25,000/year to over 100,000/year. Now, I've never made 100k a year, but I have made 25-30k per year. I wouldn't have considered myself middle-class. I knew I wasn't poor (I was doing computer work for a free care clinic, so I got to see the truly poor), but I didn't feel like middle-class. Of course, I wasn't thinking about labels either! Now, I can imagine how much 100k/year would be. If I compared the two, I would have to say that they aren't in the same league, but we are being told that they are both the Middle Class. Ok, even if I swallowed that... Can you tell me how something that would help the person making 25k/year is going to help the 100k/year person? If they are making 100k/year they might just be doing a teeny bit better financially. But then again, the 100k/year person is paying a significantly higher amount of their income in TAXES!!! hmmm, maybe that "evens things out"..
I would have to say salary is not exactly a good indicator of social standing, but for the "average" person, I guess it works ok. I say this because as a homesteading and self-sufficiency seeking family, I can see having NO DEBT at all, and working a part time job making 25k to pay for toys and extras, but having the necessities covered. This works at the bottom and the top ends of this range.
So let's take some time, and think about what this means. Until we have a definition of terms like these, whenever the government tosses out things like the "Middle Class Task Force" can be used for whatever they want and they will just shove more into the "Middle Class". Let's make sure we are all on the same page here, folks.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Fairness Doctrine = censorship
For the past few weeks, there has been a lot said about the "Fairness Doctrine" and bringing it back. While the President has said that he does not support bringing it back, he has made no statement regarding the actual provisions that were contained within this bill in its previous incarnations. The basic premise of this "doctrine" is that both sides of issues needed to be presented fairly, equally, and in a balanced manner. This was regulated by the government, in the body of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
As far as I am able to determine, this is primarily aimed at talk radio because it tends to be conservative. Television media has much more leaning opposite of talk radio, and the majority of paper media is dedicated to one side as well. (Note: television and newspapers/magazines tend to be more liberal than talk radio) The President stated to members of Congress that they could not listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done with his administration. "You can't just liten to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." (Thanks NY Post) Former President Clinton came out saying that he supports the fairness doctrine because there is so much money supporting the "right wing talk shows".
Read Rush Limbaugh's open letter to the president regarding this issue HERE.
Almost sounds like they are trying to legislate away their opponents right of free speech, doesn't it? How did the First Amendment to the Constitution go?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis added is mine.)
Sounds like this "Fairness" crapola is a bit of a law abriding the rights of free speech, now doesn't it? Not really fair if the economy and business shows that people listen to one thing or watch one thing, but you want another side shown. Why don't they just start up their own company and make it competitive? Show their side. If people believe it or want to hear it, they will make money through advertisements and become prosperous. If people don't want to hear it, don't believe it, or just plane don't like it they will fail. (AirAmerica anybody?)
Now, I have been describing this all to you for two reasons. One, we all need to know about this because it will affect our TV, radio, newspapers, etc. if it is passed, and we all should tell our congressmen and senators how we feel before that happens. Secondly, what do you think they will do after they ban this from the traditional outlets? Perchance, they will try to regulate the Internet? How do you think that will affect you? How will that affect me? Will I be able to continue my blog if they do that? Probably not. There are many others out there who are sharing information online that is not reported in the mainstream media. Do you think that they will be able to continue doing what they are doing if the government steps in to regulate the 'Net? Do you think that the idea that they are violating the First Amendment is going to stop them?
I don't think so.
Senator Jim DeMint is attempted to force a vote on a bill that would ban the Fairness Doctrine and things like it. It would also force Democrats to be on the record about which way they stand.
Read the story HERE.
Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. (and do what you can to make the best happen)
As far as I am able to determine, this is primarily aimed at talk radio because it tends to be conservative. Television media has much more leaning opposite of talk radio, and the majority of paper media is dedicated to one side as well. (Note: television and newspapers/magazines tend to be more liberal than talk radio) The President stated to members of Congress that they could not listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done with his administration. "You can't just liten to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." (Thanks NY Post) Former President Clinton came out saying that he supports the fairness doctrine because there is so much money supporting the "right wing talk shows".
Read Rush Limbaugh's open letter to the president regarding this issue HERE.
Almost sounds like they are trying to legislate away their opponents right of free speech, doesn't it? How did the First Amendment to the Constitution go?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis added is mine.)
Sounds like this "Fairness" crapola is a bit of a law abriding the rights of free speech, now doesn't it? Not really fair if the economy and business shows that people listen to one thing or watch one thing, but you want another side shown. Why don't they just start up their own company and make it competitive? Show their side. If people believe it or want to hear it, they will make money through advertisements and become prosperous. If people don't want to hear it, don't believe it, or just plane don't like it they will fail. (AirAmerica anybody?)
Now, I have been describing this all to you for two reasons. One, we all need to know about this because it will affect our TV, radio, newspapers, etc. if it is passed, and we all should tell our congressmen and senators how we feel before that happens. Secondly, what do you think they will do after they ban this from the traditional outlets? Perchance, they will try to regulate the Internet? How do you think that will affect you? How will that affect me? Will I be able to continue my blog if they do that? Probably not. There are many others out there who are sharing information online that is not reported in the mainstream media. Do you think that they will be able to continue doing what they are doing if the government steps in to regulate the 'Net? Do you think that the idea that they are violating the First Amendment is going to stop them?
I don't think so.
Senator Jim DeMint is attempted to force a vote on a bill that would ban the Fairness Doctrine and things like it. It would also force Democrats to be on the record about which way they stand.
Read the story HERE.
Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. (and do what you can to make the best happen)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Whatever happened to...
Free-market Capitalism?
Ok, seriously, I was bopping around some news sites today and I'm getting to be frickin' terrified for America and Americans because of some of the new developments...
1) Germany passed a bill that allows them to nationalize banks. They haven't actually done it, but the new law now allows them to do it. (Read It Here)
2) Alan Greenspan *twitch-twitch* (SCHMUCK) says that nationalization of our banks may very well be the best thing for our economy. Of course, he does say it should be temporary, but then, when is anything that the government does TEMPORARY??!?!?! (Read It Here)
3) Now some Republicans (although, Lindsay Graham is the only one named) are advocating nationalizing the banks as well. They are looking to the ideas that the President supports, which is the "Swedish Model". This model for banking seems to say that they want to nationalize the banks and then auction them off when they have a cleaned up balance sheet. (Read It Here)
Ok, now I am against the nationalization of ANYTHING at any time. The federal government has proven, repeatedly, that it can not run anything cleanly, on time, under budget, and without too much redtape. I know that if I were the owner, or even a majority stockholder, of any of these banks, I wouldn't want the government to rob me at gun point, would you? And yes, that is exactly what the government is talking about doing. (It's what they do to you every year by April 15!)
If we wouldn't want someone to rob us, why do people support plans that allow others to be robbed?
Ok, seriously, I was bopping around some news sites today and I'm getting to be frickin' terrified for America and Americans because of some of the new developments...
1) Germany passed a bill that allows them to nationalize banks. They haven't actually done it, but the new law now allows them to do it. (Read It Here)
2) Alan Greenspan *twitch-twitch* (SCHMUCK) says that nationalization of our banks may very well be the best thing for our economy. Of course, he does say it should be temporary, but then, when is anything that the government does TEMPORARY??!?!?! (Read It Here)
3) Now some Republicans (although, Lindsay Graham is the only one named) are advocating nationalizing the banks as well. They are looking to the ideas that the President supports, which is the "Swedish Model". This model for banking seems to say that they want to nationalize the banks and then auction them off when they have a cleaned up balance sheet. (Read It Here)
Ok, now I am against the nationalization of ANYTHING at any time. The federal government has proven, repeatedly, that it can not run anything cleanly, on time, under budget, and without too much redtape. I know that if I were the owner, or even a majority stockholder, of any of these banks, I wouldn't want the government to rob me at gun point, would you? And yes, that is exactly what the government is talking about doing. (It's what they do to you every year by April 15!)
If we wouldn't want someone to rob us, why do people support plans that allow others to be robbed?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
States Rights vs. Federal Rights
The United States of America. Greatest nation on Earth. One of the most misunderstood structure in the world.
The Constitution of the US clearly delimits the rights that the Federal government has. These are clearly delimited and defined. The rights of the States are EVERYTHING ELSE!
James Madison wrote in the Federalist paper #45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and
foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary
course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Now, I can see that people may say that the Federalist papers were not actual legal or governmental documents. Fair enough. So let's take a look at some governmental documents.
The Constitution of the United States of America outlines the rights and responsibilities of each branch of the federal government. These are specifically designated to each branch to create the checks and balances system. Ok, well, what does it say about States Rights? Not a darned thing!
The Bill of Rights was created because:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the
Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its
powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
(added emphasis is mine)
However, the Bill of Rights states in Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What does all this mean to you? Well, what I take from all of this is that a lot of what the government is trying to do is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That's right, its not constitutional. Has that stopped them for the past 80 years? Nope, but we need to make sure that people are aware of this.
Some states have been making strides to remind the federal government about this fact. They are not trying to seceed or take power from the government, but they are trying to remind the federal government and warning it to watch it's step.
Follow the trail of information, and after the links that outline this, I am including the list of links to each state that has a resolution or bill regarding this. If you know of any state that I have not included, please let me know and post it in the comments! Thanks to everyone who did the research and brought this forward to my attention!
The Republic of Dave
WorldNet Daily
In Jennifer's Head
Missouri
Arizona
Michigan
New Hampshire
Washington
Oklahoma
Take a minute, think about this and I encourage everyone to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these are the heart and soul of this country. They are the founding documents and the rules that everying in America was based on.
God Bless America.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Dictator by Executive Order
Now to interrupt your regularly scheduled evening... I heard these things when I got home and I am so upset that I had to post this.
Ok, I have to preface this by saying that I really do want the President to succeed. But after 1 day in office, I'm afeared. I'm truly afeared that the country is going to be run via executive order, completely bypassing the checks and balances built into our government.
First thing, he closed Gitmo. Well, truth be told, he closed all foreign detainment camps and prisons. What are we going to do with everyone that is currently housed in these institutions? Just let them go? Heck no... Jack Murtha is willing to house all the detainees from Gitmo in his district in PA.
Not only that, but he is saying that they will all be tried and questioned based on the Army Field Manual. You know what? That field manual is for honorable combatants that follow honorable war practices. These schmucks don't deserve that. Heck, they don't even need to be treated according to the Geneva Convention because they aren't following the rules laid out by the GC for what constitutes a war or a combatant. They aren't wearing uniforms that distinguish them, etc. So now all of these people are going to be awarded rights that they shouldn't have based on their own conduct.
Then he signed the executive order that covered the Freedom of Choice act. This states that any woman has the right to start, prevent, or terminate their pregnancy at any time. Gee, don't the fathers have any say? Why are more men not upset about this? This takes away any rights that a guy would have. If he wants the child, but the woman doesn't... tough. If he wants to use birth control, but she doesn't... tough. This act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to protest the legality of federally controlled abortion, etc.
If he is going to do this on his first day in office, what more is in store for us down the line?
Please, remember that there are three branches of government for a reason and that there is a process in place that should, no NEEDS, to be followed. We can't have someone ruling the country by executive order. Americans need to find their voice and make sure that their legislators recognize this.
America, still a representative republic. But for how long?
Ok, I have to preface this by saying that I really do want the President to succeed. But after 1 day in office, I'm afeared. I'm truly afeared that the country is going to be run via executive order, completely bypassing the checks and balances built into our government.
First thing, he closed Gitmo. Well, truth be told, he closed all foreign detainment camps and prisons. What are we going to do with everyone that is currently housed in these institutions? Just let them go? Heck no... Jack Murtha is willing to house all the detainees from Gitmo in his district in PA.
Not only that, but he is saying that they will all be tried and questioned based on the Army Field Manual. You know what? That field manual is for honorable combatants that follow honorable war practices. These schmucks don't deserve that. Heck, they don't even need to be treated according to the Geneva Convention because they aren't following the rules laid out by the GC for what constitutes a war or a combatant. They aren't wearing uniforms that distinguish them, etc. So now all of these people are going to be awarded rights that they shouldn't have based on their own conduct.
Then he signed the executive order that covered the Freedom of Choice act. This states that any woman has the right to start, prevent, or terminate their pregnancy at any time. Gee, don't the fathers have any say? Why are more men not upset about this? This takes away any rights that a guy would have. If he wants the child, but the woman doesn't... tough. If he wants to use birth control, but she doesn't... tough. This act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to protest the legality of federally controlled abortion, etc.
If he is going to do this on his first day in office, what more is in store for us down the line?
Please, remember that there are three branches of government for a reason and that there is a process in place that should, no NEEDS, to be followed. We can't have someone ruling the country by executive order. Americans need to find their voice and make sure that their legislators recognize this.
America, still a representative republic. But for how long?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Democracy? I think not!
Stop saying Democracy!
ShareMonday, October 20, 2008 at 12:03pm
(This is a repost from another website that I had published it on previously)
America is not now, nor has ever been, a DEMOCRACY! It was founded as and continues to be a Representative Republic. It is based on democratic principles, but it is not a democracy. We don't vote directly on the laws of the land, we have a House of REPRESENTATIVES and a Senate of elected officials that vote directly and we vote for them to represent us. Even the president is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. When did people start thinking we live in a democracy? Doesn't every child in America learn the Pledge of Allegiance? (well, at least we all did when I was growing up) The Pledge states: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the REPUBLIC on which it stands..."
Seriously people, its not rocket science.
ShareMonday, October 20, 2008 at 12:03pm
(This is a repost from another website that I had published it on previously)
America is not now, nor has ever been, a DEMOCRACY! It was founded as and continues to be a Representative Republic. It is based on democratic principles, but it is not a democracy. We don't vote directly on the laws of the land, we have a House of REPRESENTATIVES and a Senate of elected officials that vote directly and we vote for them to represent us. Even the president is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. When did people start thinking we live in a democracy? Doesn't every child in America learn the Pledge of Allegiance? (well, at least we all did when I was growing up) The Pledge states: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the REPUBLIC on which it stands..."
Seriously people, its not rocket science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
