The funny part isn't the joke, it's all the A&C-style interruptions that make it funny.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=lQavdaBfn9w&feature=related
Read the rest...
Friday, April 30, 2010
Immigration Reform Plan: National ID Card
The Democrats in Congress are torn, really, between two more "sweeping" pieces of legislation. One is "Wall Street Reform," because they get de-facto control of many private businesses that way. The other is immigration reform, because they get to record detailed information about each and every citizen in this country.
That's right, the bill being introduced by Democrats contains a provision that every person who works in this country carry a card with biometric information on it to verify employment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
Well, here we go again. Do Democrats REALLY not see anything wrong with this kind of massive program? It will be expensive, invasive, and incredibly anti-freedom. But apparently, Congressional Democrats LIKE the idea of having their Gestapo agents walk up to you and ask "Vere are your papers?"
Look, guys, if you honestly can't figure a way to make our immigration system work better WITHOUT adding such a program, then maybe you should resign your offices and let somebody else have a crack at it.
We're getting TIRED of all the anti-freedom and anti-individual programs being advanced by this rabidly-liberal administration and its allies in Congress. Whatever happened to "the government that governs least, governs best?"
NO, the Obama slogan appears to be closer to "It's OUR country, so sit down, shut up, and let us make history!"
Or maybe, "Don't question the workings of an Obamocracy!"
Either way, this isn't good news.
Read the rest...
That's right, the bill being introduced by Democrats contains a provision that every person who works in this country carry a card with biometric information on it to verify employment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.
Well, here we go again. Do Democrats REALLY not see anything wrong with this kind of massive program? It will be expensive, invasive, and incredibly anti-freedom. But apparently, Congressional Democrats LIKE the idea of having their Gestapo agents walk up to you and ask "Vere are your papers?"
Look, guys, if you honestly can't figure a way to make our immigration system work better WITHOUT adding such a program, then maybe you should resign your offices and let somebody else have a crack at it.
We're getting TIRED of all the anti-freedom and anti-individual programs being advanced by this rabidly-liberal administration and its allies in Congress. Whatever happened to "the government that governs least, governs best?"
NO, the Obama slogan appears to be closer to "It's OUR country, so sit down, shut up, and let us make history!"
Or maybe, "Don't question the workings of an Obamocracy!"
Either way, this isn't good news.
Read the rest...
Obama: "You've Made Enough Money"
For years I've asked a question and tried to get politicians, conservatives, and liberals to answer it. Given that government keeps asking for more money from the taxpayers, and given that the more they take the harder it is for us to make a living, how much money is "enough" for government?
I've never gotten a straight answer. Nobody wants to say "Give us X amount" or "Give us X percentage" and "that should be enough for government to spend." The reason nobody wants to give an answer is obvious... they want to leave the door open for future tax increases and perpetually increasing government spending.
Now PresBo has decided that, though government can never have "enough" money to spend, he gets to tell us when we puny individuals have earned "enough."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JkyZx1LdQ&feature=player_embedded
Is he serious?
Apparently so, yes. He thinks that We The People have no right to set taxing and spending limits on government... but HE has the right to decide when we have earned "enough."
And I'd be interested in learning where he draws that line. How much IS "enough" for the rest of us? It would have to be more than $5 million a year, as that's what PresBo reported as income last year, and he has yet to voluntarily surrender any of it to the government.
Or is it just that there should be limits on what OTHER people earn, but not on him?
The hypocrisy here is staggering, isn't it?
Read the rest...
I've never gotten a straight answer. Nobody wants to say "Give us X amount" or "Give us X percentage" and "that should be enough for government to spend." The reason nobody wants to give an answer is obvious... they want to leave the door open for future tax increases and perpetually increasing government spending.
Now PresBo has decided that, though government can never have "enough" money to spend, he gets to tell us when we puny individuals have earned "enough."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JkyZx1LdQ&feature=player_embedded
"Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
Is he serious?
Apparently so, yes. He thinks that We The People have no right to set taxing and spending limits on government... but HE has the right to decide when we have earned "enough."
And I'd be interested in learning where he draws that line. How much IS "enough" for the rest of us? It would have to be more than $5 million a year, as that's what PresBo reported as income last year, and he has yet to voluntarily surrender any of it to the government.
Or is it just that there should be limits on what OTHER people earn, but not on him?
The hypocrisy here is staggering, isn't it?
Read the rest...
ObamaCare: Some Details Of This Costly Mistake
There are three things about ObamaCare that I'd like to bring up today. The more we learn about this law, the less there is to like.
Massive new paperwork requirements
According to the tax law as it existed prior to ObamaCare, businesses had to fill out a 1099 form each time they conducted a transaction worth $600 or more with another business entity. ObamaCare changes that, and now a 1099 must be filed for expenditures of $600 or more IN THE ENTIRE YEAR.
This means that hundreds of thousands of businesses will have to start filing a huge number of 1099's for things such as rent and phone bills. It's a massive increase in paperwork that will be error-prone and do nothing but cause problems for businesses.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/health-care-bill-will-mandate-that-businesses-file-billions-of-additional-irs-1099-forms/
Why Waxman canceled the "writedown" hearings
Not long after Obama signed ObamaCare into law, many businesses started re-valuing their net worth downwards as a result of new burdens imposed by the law. Waxman (D) decided they were making it up, mainly because Democrats had been promising LOWER costs, not higher ones. So he scheduled hearings and demanded a flood of documents supporting the company's actions.
And he got those documents. After reading them, he canceled the hearings... saying that the documents showed the companies had complied with federal law. So his big side-show ended with a whimper. Is there more to it? Apparently so, yes. It seems that the internal documentation showed that costs would rise even higher, and that employers would benefit by NOT offering health insurance to employees.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/29/why-waxman-canceled-the-health
ObamaCare "Individual Mandate" in trouble
The defenders of the individual mandate originally said the "interstate commerce" clause gave Congress the power to force us to buy health insurance. Now they're shifted ground, claiming that it's a "tax," and Congress has the power to tax. Such a shift means they are unsure of their original arguments, and could be a foreshadowing of things to come.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html
So that's the latest on ObamaCare. Lovely can of worms our elected liberals have opened, isn't it?
Read the rest...
Massive new paperwork requirements
According to the tax law as it existed prior to ObamaCare, businesses had to fill out a 1099 form each time they conducted a transaction worth $600 or more with another business entity. ObamaCare changes that, and now a 1099 must be filed for expenditures of $600 or more IN THE ENTIRE YEAR.
This means that hundreds of thousands of businesses will have to start filing a huge number of 1099's for things such as rent and phone bills. It's a massive increase in paperwork that will be error-prone and do nothing but cause problems for businesses.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/health-care-bill-will-mandate-that-businesses-file-billions-of-additional-irs-1099-forms/
Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.
Why Waxman canceled the "writedown" hearings
Not long after Obama signed ObamaCare into law, many businesses started re-valuing their net worth downwards as a result of new burdens imposed by the law. Waxman (D) decided they were making it up, mainly because Democrats had been promising LOWER costs, not higher ones. So he scheduled hearings and demanded a flood of documents supporting the company's actions.
And he got those documents. After reading them, he canceled the hearings... saying that the documents showed the companies had complied with federal law. So his big side-show ended with a whimper. Is there more to it? Apparently so, yes. It seems that the internal documentation showed that costs would rise even higher, and that employers would benefit by NOT offering health insurance to employees.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/29/why-waxman-canceled-the-health
Publicly, Waxman said the investigation showed the companies’ disclosures were properly filed. But a new report from committee Republicans reveals the documents Waxman obtained included embarrassing evidence that the health-care law could drive up insurance premiums and force employers to dump employees from their health plans.
“Turns out Obamacare means if you like your health plan you can lose it. The president didn’t have to actually strong-arm companies into dumping their employee health insurance because his bill carried financial incentives to virtually guarantee that result,” Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Rep. Joe Barton, Texas Republican, said.
Most significantly, documents unearthed by the investigation highlight companies that are considering dumping employees from their current health-care plans in the face of new costs from the health-care law. President Obama repeatedly promised his health-care law would let Americans keep their current insurance if they’re happy with it.
A March 3 internal Verizon memo on the impact health-care law said new taxes on insurance companies and health-care equipment manufacturers will be passed onto employers through higher prices.
Facing such increased costs, employers like Verizon “may consider exiting the health-care market and send employees to the exchanges,” the memo says.
ObamaCare "Individual Mandate" in trouble
The defenders of the individual mandate originally said the "interstate commerce" clause gave Congress the power to force us to buy health insurance. Now they're shifted ground, claiming that it's a "tax," and Congress has the power to tax. Such a shift means they are unsure of their original arguments, and could be a foreshadowing of things to come.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html
A "tell" in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player's behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player's assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month's health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate's defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress's power to tax.
This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late. When the mandate's constitutionality comes up for review as part of the state attorneys general lawsuit, the Supreme Court will not consider the penalty enforcing the mandate to be a tax because, in the provision that actually defines and imposes the mandate and penalty, Congress did not call it a tax and did not treat it as a tax.
So defenders of the mandate are making yet another unprecedented claim. Never before has the Court looked behind Congress's unconstitutional assertion of its commerce power to see if a measure could have been justified as a tax. For that matter, never before has a "tax" penalty been used to mandate, rather than discourage or prohibit, economic activity.
Are there now five justices willing to expand the commerce and tax powers of Congress where they have never gone before? Will the Court empower Congress to mandate any activity on the theory that a "decision" not to act somehow affects interstate commerce? Will the Court accept that Congress has the power to mandate any activity so long as it is included in the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS does the enforcing?
Yes, the smart money is always on the Court upholding an act of Congress. But given the hand Congress is now holding, I would not bet the farm.
So that's the latest on ObamaCare. Lovely can of worms our elected liberals have opened, isn't it?
Read the rest...
Tax Hikes Won't Solve Anything
Our national debt is nearing 63% of GDP, and will hit 90% of GDP within a decade. For those who haven't been following this, it's a bad thing. There are three major methods that can be used to address this growing problem.
So the big battle is, should we address the yearly deficit and national debt by increasing taxes or by reducing spending? Most politicians seem more likely to respond by raising taxes... but this won't work.
How many times has Alabama had budget shortfalls or had to go into proration? Usually, taxes went up in the following year... and yet they still had similar problems after raising taxes and had to go BACK to the taxpayers again and again. A politician friend of mine once told me that "we can ALWAYS spend more money."
And that's the problem.
You see, our difficulties aren't caused by being under taxed. They're caused by our politicians overspending. So increasing taxes doesn't do anything to solve the problem, because the politicians continue to increase spending and, sooner or later, need even MORE taxpayer money.
In fact, raising taxes actually makes our problems WORSE in the long run.
So to address our national problem with out-of-control debt, we have to address what caused the problem in the first place: spending. If we don't get spending under control, we'll end up bankrupt. Just like Greece.
Any solution we adopt MUST feature spending cuts and controls on future spending in order to be even marginally effective. Without those controls, things will continue to get worse in the long run, even if something is done to make things better "for now."
The only solution to massive debt caused by overspending is to CUT SPENDING. And that means all spending... including social security and medicare. Those entitlement programs have grown to unsustainable sizes, becoming so large that they consume a large and ever-growing chunk of our yearly budget.
So when the President's "Deficit Reduction Panel" comes out and endorses a "flat tax" to raise more revenue, please remember that this will NOT accomplish the goal of reducing our national debt. Our politicians in DC WILL increase spending as the new revenue stream comes online.
And that's a path to disaster.
Read the rest...
1) Dramatically grow the economy while spending grows less than that. Thus the national debt doesn't decrease, but as the GDP grows then our debt is a smaller percentage of it. I don't see this kind of growth happening anytime soon, so we'll leave this one out of future discussions.
2) Close the budget gap (yearly deficit) primarily by raising taxes.
3) Close the budget gap (yearly deficit) primarily by reducing spending.
So the big battle is, should we address the yearly deficit and national debt by increasing taxes or by reducing spending? Most politicians seem more likely to respond by raising taxes... but this won't work.
How many times has Alabama had budget shortfalls or had to go into proration? Usually, taxes went up in the following year... and yet they still had similar problems after raising taxes and had to go BACK to the taxpayers again and again. A politician friend of mine once told me that "we can ALWAYS spend more money."
And that's the problem.
You see, our difficulties aren't caused by being under taxed. They're caused by our politicians overspending. So increasing taxes doesn't do anything to solve the problem, because the politicians continue to increase spending and, sooner or later, need even MORE taxpayer money.
In fact, raising taxes actually makes our problems WORSE in the long run.
So to address our national problem with out-of-control debt, we have to address what caused the problem in the first place: spending. If we don't get spending under control, we'll end up bankrupt. Just like Greece.
Any solution we adopt MUST feature spending cuts and controls on future spending in order to be even marginally effective. Without those controls, things will continue to get worse in the long run, even if something is done to make things better "for now."
The only solution to massive debt caused by overspending is to CUT SPENDING. And that means all spending... including social security and medicare. Those entitlement programs have grown to unsustainable sizes, becoming so large that they consume a large and ever-growing chunk of our yearly budget.
So when the President's "Deficit Reduction Panel" comes out and endorses a "flat tax" to raise more revenue, please remember that this will NOT accomplish the goal of reducing our national debt. Our politicians in DC WILL increase spending as the new revenue stream comes online.
And that's a path to disaster.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Confused Gangster
Here's a good example of how to confuse a gangster, A&C style.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KNIDawdhbvg&feature=related
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KNIDawdhbvg&feature=related
Read the rest...
More Signs Of US Fascism
Do you remember when I wrote last Friday about the desire to control health insurance premiums being a fascist step?
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/04/dems-want-to-regulate-premiums-fascist.html
This isn't the only action being taken by our wonderful Federal government that could be interpreted as fascist in nature. Let's look, for example, at the financial regulatory "reform" bill being debated now in the Senate. That bill would do things that most people don't realize.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/financial-fascism/
How many people know that the liberals in Congress want to virtually destroy the high-risk entrepreneur? Would they support the legislation if they DID know that?
The legislation that the Republicans just caved in on and agreed to debate is very bad medicine for the economic health of our nation.
So others are seeing this shift towards fascism that is being engineered by Obama and his liberal cronies. I can think of worse directions for our nation to head in, but not many.
I will probably write more on the subject of United States fascism in the near future... It's beginning to appear relevant.
Read the rest...
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/04/dems-want-to-regulate-premiums-fascist.html
This isn't the only action being taken by our wonderful Federal government that could be interpreted as fascist in nature. Let's look, for example, at the financial regulatory "reform" bill being debated now in the Senate. That bill would do things that most people don't realize.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/financial-fascism/
The "Dodd financial reform" bill being considered by the Senate will make it illegal for 99.6 percent of the population to invest in needed new and promising start-up companies while at the same time ensuring that the 33 largest banks, which control 92 percent of all bank assets, will be required to purchase more federal government debt before giving loans to businesses and individuals. Quite simply, the government is continuing to practice financial fascism.
The new health care bill will require us to buy specified health insurance, whether it is appropriate for us or not. Government-run ads encourage people to buy tickets in government-run lotteries, where the expected value can be less than one-sixth of the ticket price. Yet the new financial reform bill will make it illegal to invest in a new venture or start-up company for anyone who does not have a liquid net worth of $2.2 million or an annual income of roughly $450,000 if single or $675,000 if married - which rules out all but fewer than 1 percent of the population. If this passes and is signed into law, Congress and the president will be saying to the American people, "Ninety-nine-plus percent of you are too stupid to know how to invest your own money." (They think the rest of us are as irresponsible as they are.)
How many people know that the liberals in Congress want to virtually destroy the high-risk entrepreneur? Would they support the legislation if they DID know that?
The legislation that the Republicans just caved in on and agreed to debate is very bad medicine for the economic health of our nation.
The 1,300-page financial reform bill going through the Senate will, in essence, make the biggest banks (those considered too big to fail) wards of the state - which is classic financial fascism. The Obama Treasury, not the semi-independent Federal Reserve, will decide what these banks are allowed to invest in, in exchange for an unlimited U.S. government guarantee. Since September 2009, banks have been lending more to the government than to private industry. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see where all this is headed.
So others are seeing this shift towards fascism that is being engineered by Obama and his liberal cronies. I can think of worse directions for our nation to head in, but not many.
I will probably write more on the subject of United States fascism in the near future... It's beginning to appear relevant.
Read the rest...
Congress May Repeal DC Gun Laws
Remember when the Supreme Court ruled that DC's gun laws were unconstitutional? Yeah, I do too... what a great day!
Anyway, to continue. Ever since then, DC has been trying to modify their laws as little as possible in order to maintain the maximum amount of restrictions on gun rights. Two bills have been introduced in Congress to correct that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/federal-bills-would-repeal-dc-gun-laws/
In other words, the bills would establish very open gun rights in DC and not permit the DC Council from changing that. And they have the power... Congress has the responsibility of overseeing Washington DC government.
Personally, I think the laws might reach a little far. While I think that licensed gun owners SHOULD be allowed to carry into government buildings, that's not something that is allowed in most states. Overall, the bills are good, but I think that provision specifically is being viewed as a little extreme. And if they're viewed that way, then they won't pass.
And they SHOULD pass. Washington DC should be a shining example of freedom and responsibility, not a blueprint for totalitarian rule.
Read the rest...
Anyway, to continue. Ever since then, DC has been trying to modify their laws as little as possible in order to maintain the maximum amount of restrictions on gun rights. Two bills have been introduced in Congress to correct that.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/federal-bills-would-repeal-dc-gun-laws/
Federal lawmakers Tuesday introduced bills into the House and Senate that would repeal most of the local gun laws in Washington, D.C.
The bills introduced Tuesday would eliminate gun-registration requirements in the city and prevent the mayor and the D.C. Council from adopting laws prohibiting gun ownership.
It would also bar city officials from enacting laws that would prohibit guns from being carried in public places (whether concealed or openly brandished), that would diminish the authority of the city's police chief to deny concealed-carry licenses, or that would prohibit city leaders from preventing guns from being taken into city buildings.
In other words, the bills would establish very open gun rights in DC and not permit the DC Council from changing that. And they have the power... Congress has the responsibility of overseeing Washington DC government.
Personally, I think the laws might reach a little far. While I think that licensed gun owners SHOULD be allowed to carry into government buildings, that's not something that is allowed in most states. Overall, the bills are good, but I think that provision specifically is being viewed as a little extreme. And if they're viewed that way, then they won't pass.
And they SHOULD pass. Washington DC should be a shining example of freedom and responsibility, not a blueprint for totalitarian rule.
Read the rest...
News Flash: Stimulus Didn't Work
Not surprisingly, most people think that the stimulus didn't work. Most people think that all of that money was spent, and that we've seen little or no return from it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36544.html
And although public opinion does not always reflect objective fact, in this case it does. A new survey of economists says that the massive expenditures in the stimulus did not, in fact, create jobs and economic growth.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/index.htm?section=money_latest&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
If you'll recall, passing the stimulus was hailed as the Democrat's first big success since Obama was elected. Now liberals discover what the rest of us knew all along, that the stimulus essentially wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to no effect. It did not achieve what we were promised it would achieve.
Now liberals are hoping that their second big success, ObamaCare, will fare better. Judging from recent revelations from CMS, the agency that runs Medicare, that won't be the case. Regardless of that fact, Democrats want to rush forward and pass Wall Street "reform," cap & tax, immigration amnesty, and a bevy of other initiatives that will be bad for this country.
I have no great love for Republicans, but we certainly need to do SOMETHING to stop this unceasing assault on everything that makes this country NOT Iran.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36544.html
Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research poll.
Sixty-two percent of those polled said the stimulus hasn’t contributed to job creation while 33 percent said the package has.
Only a slight majority, 51 percent, of Democrats think the stimulus helped create jobs, 42 percent said it has not. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified Republicans said the stimulus didn’t aide job growth while 18 percent think it did.
And although public opinion does not always reflect objective fact, in this case it does. A new survey of economists says that the massive expenditures in the stimulus did not, in fact, create jobs and economic growth.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/index.htm?section=money_latest&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act.
If you'll recall, passing the stimulus was hailed as the Democrat's first big success since Obama was elected. Now liberals discover what the rest of us knew all along, that the stimulus essentially wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to no effect. It did not achieve what we were promised it would achieve.
Now liberals are hoping that their second big success, ObamaCare, will fare better. Judging from recent revelations from CMS, the agency that runs Medicare, that won't be the case. Regardless of that fact, Democrats want to rush forward and pass Wall Street "reform," cap & tax, immigration amnesty, and a bevy of other initiatives that will be bad for this country.
I have no great love for Republicans, but we certainly need to do SOMETHING to stop this unceasing assault on everything that makes this country NOT Iran.
Read the rest...
Poll: Make Puerto Rico A State?
Should we make Puerto Rico our 51st state? You tell me...
Feel free to discuss the issue in comments, as well. Give us your thoughts as well as your opinions.
Read the rest...
Feel free to discuss the issue in comments, as well. Give us your thoughts as well as your opinions.
Read the rest...
Should Puerto Rico The Become 51st State?
I'm not sure if you realized it, but there's a quiet effort underway to make Puerto Rico the 51st State... and it's gaining support in Congress.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/04/29/puerto-rico-vote/
At this moment in time, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth: they don't pay federal income taxes, though they do pay social security... they also have a non-voting representative in Congress.
The process won't be quick or easy, however. Here's how it would work. The House bill to give Puerto Ricans a choice would have to pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. Then Puerto Rico would hold a referendum asking if they wanted any change to their status. If the answer is yes, then another referendum is held asking WHAT changes to their status are desired. If the voters choose at that time to become a state, then a statehood bill would have to be introduced in Congress, passed by both Houses, and signed by the President.
Whew.
SO what do YOU think? Should we welcome Puerto Rico as the 51st State in the Union?
(Look for the poll question coming up shortly.)
Read the rest...
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/04/29/puerto-rico-vote/
The U.S. House votes today on a bill that would let the citizens of Puerto Rico determine their future relationship with the United States, with one option possibly being that the island could become the 51st State. But it will take more than one vote.
The bill is H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, which was introduced last October. It would set up a pair of votes to help determine what - if any - changes residents would like to make in their governing structure, which would include statehood and independence.
The first vote would be pretty simple, asking voters if they want things to stay the same or change. If the change option wins, then Puerto Ricans could vote on a series of different options in a second referendum.
At this moment in time, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth: they don't pay federal income taxes, though they do pay social security... they also have a non-voting representative in Congress.
The process won't be quick or easy, however. Here's how it would work. The House bill to give Puerto Ricans a choice would have to pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. Then Puerto Rico would hold a referendum asking if they wanted any change to their status. If the answer is yes, then another referendum is held asking WHAT changes to their status are desired. If the voters choose at that time to become a state, then a statehood bill would have to be introduced in Congress, passed by both Houses, and signed by the President.
Whew.
SO what do YOU think? Should we welcome Puerto Rico as the 51st State in the Union?
(Look for the poll question coming up shortly.)
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Afternoon Humor: The Sandwich
This scene from one of their movies is another good example of how they play fast and loose with things to produce a laugh.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f1zuw5Ha18
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f1zuw5Ha18
Read the rest...
Canada Health Plan: Wait For Care
Let's look northwards to Canada to get a glimpse of what we can expect in the future with ObamaCare. Apparently, one major thing we can expect is very LONG waiting times for medical treatment that is, for anybody without connections, substandard.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=145341
That's what we can look forward to in the United States if we allow ObamaCare to be fully implemented. Why would ANYBODY want that?
The report contains more details.
That last sentence is probably the best reason NOT to have government heavily involved in our medical care decisions. Of course, the political class wouldn't agree...
Read the rest...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=145341
A study released on Canada's socialized medical system reveals that the average patient spends over 16 weeks – in some cases more than twice as long as doctors deem "reasonable" – waiting for health-care treatment, costing both estimated thousands of dollars per year per patient and, potentially, lives.
"The promise of the Canadian health-care system is not being realized," concludes the 19th annual study released by the independent Fraser Institute. "This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric."
Corresponding "lofty rhetoric" in the United States has touted government-regulated and -mandated health care as a way of closing a medical-coverage gap between the rich and poor.
The Fraser study, titled "Waiting Your Turn," however, found that even with government attempts to level the playing field, poor and rural residents in Canada are routinely denied what doctors consider even adequate care.
That's what we can look forward to in the United States if we allow ObamaCare to be fully implemented. Why would ANYBODY want that?
The report contains more details.
After accounting for the age of the nation's population, the report states, Canada ranked second (in 2005) in health spending among the world's developed countries offering universal-access, public-health-care systems.
And by comparing a 2000 study of Canadian provinces against a follow-up analysis in 2003, the report claims, "Increased spending was actually correlated with increases in waiting times."
Other claims and findings of the study included the following:
- On average, patients waited over 2 months from seeing their general practitioner to seeing a specialist and another 2 months to receive actual treatment.
- The shortest wait from general practitioner to actual treatment was for cancer radiation therapy, an average wait of only 4.8 weeks. Patients needing orthopedic surgery, however, such as hip replacements, could be expected to wait 33.7 weeks – longer than six months – on average.
- Internal-medicine patients had to wait nearly two months for treatment, more than twice as long as a survey of Canadian doctors considered "reasonable."
- Waiting times exceeded what the doctors considered clinically "reasonable" for 79 percent of all forms of treatment.
- Since 1993, total waiting times have grown 73 percent longer.
- Citing other studies, the report claims Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or British.
- Also citing other studies, the report contends this waiting time is estimated to cost patients annually $1,100 to $5,600.
- Waiting times on psychiatric treatments were even worse, with Canadians on average compelled to wait 1.5 times as long as doctors considered "reasonable" for treatment. In the worst-case scenario, patients with sleeping disorders in Saskatchewan were compelled to wait nine times as long as what doctors considered "reasonable" for treatment.
And while the report itself referred to the waiting times as "the medical system's most curable disease," the study compared doctors' opinions to the government's guidelines and discovered that for the most part, Canada's legislators don't see the waits as a problem.
That last sentence is probably the best reason NOT to have government heavily involved in our medical care decisions. Of course, the political class wouldn't agree...
Read the rest...
Did Obama Hide ObamaCare Report Prior To Vote?
An interesting question has been raised about a recently released (to the public) report from HHR. The report indicated that, far from reducing costs, ObamaCare would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers. According to the American Spectator, that report was delivered to the office of HHS head Kathleen Sebelius a full week before the bill was voted on. Sources inside the HHS claim the report was suppressed because administration officials didn't want to "influence the vote."
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/what-lies-beneath
I should note that the report is being energetically denied by those concerned. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary (the group that issued the report) says the Spectator report is "completely inaccurate" and had this to say:
I am always inherently leery of any report that relies solely upon anonymous sources for the facts, as we lack the ability to judge the reliability of those sources. So I don't know if the charges are true or not.
But it IS interesting. ObamaCare opponents disputed the official PresBo-line that it would reduce costs, and this report indicates we were right. The possible scandal that PresBo knew about it before the vote but suppressed it... Well, let's just say that it isn't unbelievable and leave it at that.
Read the rest...
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/what-lies-beneath
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."
The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote -- the review by the secretary's office reportedly took less than three days -- and bore a note that the analysis was not the official position of the Obama administration.
I should note that the report is being energetically denied by those concerned. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary (the group that issued the report) says the Spectator report is "completely inaccurate" and had this to say:
"We began working on the reconciliation bill for the health reform legislation once it was publicly issued on March 18 – three days before the House vote took place on March 21," Foster said in a statement. "Because of the details and complexity of the legislation, it wasn't possible to estimate the package before the Senate vote. We began work on the estimates right away, but we didn't finalize them until the afternoon of April 22.
"We finished our memorandum on the health reform act later that same day and immediately sent it to those individuals and organizations that had requested it, including congressional staff, HHS staff and media representatives," he concluded. "Consistent with the Office of the Actuary's longstanding independent role on behalf of Congress, we did not seek approval or clearance from HHS (or anyone else) before issuing our analysis."
I am always inherently leery of any report that relies solely upon anonymous sources for the facts, as we lack the ability to judge the reliability of those sources. So I don't know if the charges are true or not.
But it IS interesting. ObamaCare opponents disputed the official PresBo-line that it would reduce costs, and this report indicates we were right. The possible scandal that PresBo knew about it before the vote but suppressed it... Well, let's just say that it isn't unbelievable and leave it at that.
Read the rest...
GM's Bogus "All Paid Off" Claim
For those who have been paying attention, GM has been loudly proclaiming that they have "paid back" the taxpayer money they got through the bailouts. The problem is that this claim is bogus.
You see, they received a total of $49.5 billion in government aid, of which only $6.7 billion was a pure loan. All that GM has paid off was that $6.7 billion loan. But even that amount wasn't paid off with profits, because GM isn't profitable yet. Instead, GM actually used money from a $13.7 billion fund that was created with taxpayer dollars. So they used government money to pay back a loan from the government.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback
As it turns out, GM paid back this $6.7 billion loan in order to make a larger, $10 billion loan more politically feasible.
The entire bailout process was a colossal fraud perpetrated on the US taxpayer, and it's not getting any better. Let this be a lesson to you... be skeptical of those who are surviving by taking money from the taxpayers. They have little to lose by lying to us.
Read the rest...
You see, they received a total of $49.5 billion in government aid, of which only $6.7 billion was a pure loan. All that GM has paid off was that $6.7 billion loan. But even that amount wasn't paid off with profits, because GM isn't profitable yet. Instead, GM actually used money from a $13.7 billion fund that was created with taxpayer dollars. So they used government money to pay back a loan from the government.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback
But when Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion—the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.
But wait! Even that's not the full story given that GM, which has not yet broken even, much less turned a profit, can't pay even this puny amount from its own earnings.
So how is it paying it?
As it turns out, the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money—government money—to pay back the government loan.
As it turns out, GM paid back this $6.7 billion loan in order to make a larger, $10 billion loan more politically feasible.
Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, points out that the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5 percent) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government's tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new—and bigger—DOE loan much more feasible.
In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2 percent lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt—not pay it back!
The entire bailout process was a colossal fraud perpetrated on the US taxpayer, and it's not getting any better. Let this be a lesson to you... be skeptical of those who are surviving by taking money from the taxpayers. They have little to lose by lying to us.
Read the rest...
ObamaCare Update: Unpopular And Expensive
Not long after PresBo triumphantly signed ObamaCare into law, all the while proclaiming how health care will be less expensive, several companies analyzed the law and re-valued their companies downwards. Essentially, ObamaCare caused those companies to be worth less... it's called a writedown.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/03/early-obamacare-results-companies.html
The moment they did so, the companies in question were attacked by the President, various administration officials, and numerous Democrats in Congress. The Congressmen, notably Henry Waxman (D) and Bart Stupak (D), demanded Congressional hearings to expose just how badly those companies were behaving.
Well, the Congressmen have examined the evidence and the results are out. The companies acted properly by re-valuing their net worth downwards because of ObamaCare's increased cost burdens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27health.html?ref=instapundit
So the Democrats overreacted and demonized companies complying with ObamaCare... and all because the immediate results of the law directly contradicted what the liberals claimed the results would be. Political posturing at it's worst... attack and demonize anyone telling the truth.
Oh, and the overall total is now up to $3.4 billion in lost value, all directly attributable to ObamaCare.
Maybe all of this is one big reason why more people than ever want ObamaCare repealed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64746
So, for all you Democrats who think that you will see a popularity boost because of ObamaCare... what HAVE you been smoking?
UPDATE: And there ARE Democrats who believe precisely that.
Read the rest...
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/03/early-obamacare-results-companies.html
The bill is now law, and those companies are required to immediately restate their value to reflect their long-term health liabilities... including taxes.
So several high-profile companies have done so, and in the process "written down" their net worth by quite a lot of money... collectively, the new law cost them almost $1.4 billion.
The moment they did so, the companies in question were attacked by the President, various administration officials, and numerous Democrats in Congress. The Congressmen, notably Henry Waxman (D) and Bart Stupak (D), demanded Congressional hearings to expose just how badly those companies were behaving.
Well, the Congressmen have examined the evidence and the results are out. The companies acted properly by re-valuing their net worth downwards because of ObamaCare's increased cost burdens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27health.html?ref=instapundit
Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and Bart Stupak of Michigan, both Democrats, opened an investigation and demanded that four companies — AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere and Verizon — supply documents analyzing the “impact of health care reform,” together with an explanation of their accounting methods.
The documents — hundreds of pages of e-mail messages and financial worksheets — include large amounts of data that substantiate the companies’ concerns. They have reignited a battle over the law in Congress.
Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “From a financial standpoint, from a purely economic standpoint, many companies would be better off discontinuing health care as a fringe benefit, paying the penalty and pocketing the savings.”
In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”
Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.
So the Democrats overreacted and demonized companies complying with ObamaCare... and all because the immediate results of the law directly contradicted what the liberals claimed the results would be. Political posturing at it's worst... attack and demonize anyone telling the truth.
Oh, and the overall total is now up to $3.4 billion in lost value, all directly attributable to ObamaCare.
A tabulation by the United States Chamber of Commerce shows that at least 40 companies have taken charges against earnings that total $3.4 billion since the law was signed.
Maybe all of this is one big reason why more people than ever want ObamaCare repealed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64746
Fifty-eight (58) percent of likely voters said they would support an effort to repeal the legislation, as Republicans have given consideration to campaigning on such a promise. Just 38 percent communicated opposition to such an effort.
The percentage who support repeal efforts are up 3 percent from the week just after the bill passed, when President Obama made several campaign-style stops in support of the bill.
The ranks of those who believe the bill will be “bad for the country” have also increased from 49 to 52 percent over the same time period, while the percentage of likely voters who believe reform will be “good for the country” has inched down from 41 to 39 percent.
So, for all you Democrats who think that you will see a popularity boost because of ObamaCare... what HAVE you been smoking?
UPDATE: And there ARE Democrats who believe precisely that.
The third-ranking House Democrat on Tuesday touted the party’s efforts to sell the healthcare law, predicting voters would see “a big difference” from the opposition-dominated town halls of last summer.
“We’re going to go out to the American people and let them know exactly what’s in the bill,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters after the House Democratic caucus's weekly meeting.
“I think you’re going to see a big difference this August than last August,” Clyburn, the Democratic whip, said, referring to the heated town hall meetings that nearly derailed the healthcare push in 2009.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/94607-clyburn-predicts-august-healthcare-bump
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Magic Trick
This is a pretty nifty little magic trick, personalized with A&C's unique comedic stamp.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KxEi6hs2Fa4&feature=related
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KxEi6hs2Fa4&feature=related
Read the rest...
Breaking: Boobquake Rocks Taiwan!
This belongs to the "stranger than fiction" category, I think.
First, we have to realize that some high-ranking Islamic religious figures are just completely nuts. Crazy. Bonkers. Put 'em in a straight-jacket and lock 'em up loony.
Why do I say this? Because of the words uttered recently by an incredibly high-ranking Islamic cleric by the name of Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi in Iran... Tehran, to be specific.
Before we continue, go ahead and read that again... I want you to understand the level of lunacy that we're dealing with.
Finished? Good.
After he said that, a young lady "somewhere in the United States" decided to sponsor "Boobquake" yesterday. The idea was to test the theory by having young ladies across the nation dress immodestly by exposing cleavage... and see if there are any earthquakes.
So Boobquake took place yesterday, with many young ladies exposing some cleavage in the name of science. Here's a video interview of one such local gathering that took place in DC.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/27/reasontv-boobquake-live-from-d
The only downside of this experiment in scientific immodesty is that there was, in fact, a 6.5 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Taiwan yesterday morning.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37617-International-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m4d26-65magnitude-earthquake-hits-Taiwan-no-injuries-or-tsunami-reported
One does wonder how American girls wearing immodest clothing caused an earthquake way over in Taiwan, but one must also admit that Boobquake did coincide with an actual earthquake. Maybe their aim was off...
We have three options here. We can:
(grin)
You choose...
UPDATE: According to the organizer of BoobQuake, the number and severity of earthquakes on the 26th was within the statistical bounds of expected activity. In other words, Boobquake did NOT cause more earthquakes.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/801116--no-sign-that-boobquake-caused-earthquakes?bn=1
Read the rest...
First, we have to realize that some high-ranking Islamic religious figures are just completely nuts. Crazy. Bonkers. Put 'em in a straight-jacket and lock 'em up loony.
Why do I say this? Because of the words uttered recently by an incredibly high-ranking Islamic cleric by the name of Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi in Iran... Tehran, to be specific.
"Many women who do not dress modestly...lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes."
Before we continue, go ahead and read that again... I want you to understand the level of lunacy that we're dealing with.
Finished? Good.
After he said that, a young lady "somewhere in the United States" decided to sponsor "Boobquake" yesterday. The idea was to test the theory by having young ladies across the nation dress immodestly by exposing cleavage... and see if there are any earthquakes.
So Boobquake took place yesterday, with many young ladies exposing some cleavage in the name of science. Here's a video interview of one such local gathering that took place in DC.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/27/reasontv-boobquake-live-from-d
The only downside of this experiment in scientific immodesty is that there was, in fact, a 6.5 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Taiwan yesterday morning.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37617-International-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m4d26-65magnitude-earthquake-hits-Taiwan-no-injuries-or-tsunami-reported
Monday morning a 6.5-magnitude earthquake struck the southeast coast of Taiwan, but no damages have been reported. The quake caused buildings to sway in Taipei for about 20 second and was felt at a landslide site in northern Taiwan.
One does wonder how American girls wearing immodest clothing caused an earthquake way over in Taiwan, but one must also admit that Boobquake did coincide with an actual earthquake. Maybe their aim was off...
We have three options here. We can:
1) Believe that what's-his-name was right.
2) Believe it was a pure coincidence.
3) Hold another Boobquake event and hope the next earthquake hits Tehran.
(grin)
You choose...
UPDATE: According to the organizer of BoobQuake, the number and severity of earthquakes on the 26th was within the statistical bounds of expected activity. In other words, Boobquake did NOT cause more earthquakes.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/801116--no-sign-that-boobquake-caused-earthquakes?bn=1
Read the rest...
Did They Lie, Or Were They Just Wrong?
One of the selling points used for ObamaCare was that it would "reduce health care costs." We were told that not only would government costs go down, but so would OUR costs. We were told that ObamaCare would reduce the amount we pay for health insurance, among many other things.
If that's so, then why did insurance premiums rise after ObamaCare was passed? And why have Democrats introduced a "fix" that would allow the government to regulate (i.e. control) health insurance premiums?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198322718759844.html
ObamaCare, despite the grandiose and unrealistic claims made by Democrats, will cause insurance premiums to rise.
That's why the new bill was introduced, to maybe keep the EXPECTED BAD CONSEQUENCES of ObamaCare from hurting Democrats in the fall elections.
Before ObamaCare was passed, many opponents theorized that their real intention was to destroy the private insurance industry and institute a government-run single-payer system. We were told we were fear-mongering. We were told that wouldn't happen.
Hmmm... Put numerous obligations in place that would require premium hikes in order for the insurance company to make a profit, then deny the premium increases.
Tell me again why we were wrong?
The only question that remains is, did they lie about all of this or were they just incredibly mistaken? Personally, seeing as how they haven't admitted to a mistake, I have to conclude things are working out just as they wanted them to.
Read the rest...
If that's so, then why did insurance premiums rise after ObamaCare was passed? And why have Democrats introduced a "fix" that would allow the government to regulate (i.e. control) health insurance premiums?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198322718759844.html
When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government." So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?
In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are "unreasonable." The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.
ObamaCare, despite the grandiose and unrealistic claims made by Democrats, will cause insurance premiums to rise.
National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.
ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these "benefits," but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.
That's why the new bill was introduced, to maybe keep the EXPECTED BAD CONSEQUENCES of ObamaCare from hurting Democrats in the fall elections.
Before ObamaCare was passed, many opponents theorized that their real intention was to destroy the private insurance industry and institute a government-run single-payer system. We were told we were fear-mongering. We were told that wouldn't happen.
Hmmm... Put numerous obligations in place that would require premium hikes in order for the insurance company to make a profit, then deny the premium increases.
Tell me again why we were wrong?
The only question that remains is, did they lie about all of this or were they just incredibly mistaken? Personally, seeing as how they haven't admitted to a mistake, I have to conclude things are working out just as they wanted them to.
Read the rest...
Finally, Violence At A Protest!
Tea Parties have been meeting and holding protests and rallies for more than a year, now. And for most of that time they've been portrayed as violent and racist. Especially recently, tea parties have been portrayed as gatherings of "brown shirts" and terrorists. Former President Clinton even called them the new front in the war on terror. But in all that time, have you seen any documented reports of violence at a Tea Party protest? Any police attacked, anything like that?
No, you haven't. There WAS a protest recently at which the protesters threw things at police officers, cursed at them, and threatened violence... only it wasn't a Tea Party. No, it was a protest in Phoenix against their new illegal immigration law. Funny, haven't heard Barney Frank or PresBo saying much about THAT...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p48INNGtXh4&feature=player_embedded
The man being led away at the beginning of the video allegedly made various comments to the people gathered to protest the signing of Arizona's new illegal immigration law. I say allegedly because reports vary on what was said. At the beginning of this video, you hear the man tell officers "I'm not starting it," to which an officer replies, "I know."
The result, however, is that officers were assaulted by protesters. You can hear people on the video saying what sounds like, "Get that white boy!" Also heard were epithets such as "F*** you! F***ing racist!" (Ironic that charges of racism follow the hurling of a racial reference, eh?) Water bottles get thrown and bounce off of police officers. It got to the point that police had to draw mace canisters to get the crowd to back off.
At the very end of the video, we hear a man yelling what SOUNDS like: "F*** him, that American piece of sh**!" Now the audio isn't very clear... there's a mob howling in the background. But that's what it sounds like to me... You be the judge.
Protesters claim that they were "provoked" by words, and that's why they erupted into a violent mob. But you know, Tea Partiers have been subjected to a lot more provocation than that and haven't started a single riot.
So why aren't we hearing politicians denounce the violence? They were quick to paint Tea Party protesters as violent racists EVEN THOUGH there is not a single videotaped incident showing Tea Partiers rioting. So why aren't they denouncing REAL violent protests when we see them?
Oh silly me, it's obvious. Those politicians AGREE with the protesters in this case, and disagree with Tea Parties. That's reason enough to slander us and ignore those who have committed real violence.
Rioting and the associated violence are WRONG, period, regardless of the "reason" for it. And the reaction to this event by the MSM and our politicians is also wrong. Denounce it, people, don't excuse it.
So the good news for Democrats is that a protest FINALLY turned violent. The bad news is that it was one of their own protests instead of a Tea Party.
And that's a fact that could surprise only a liberal.
Read the rest...
No, you haven't. There WAS a protest recently at which the protesters threw things at police officers, cursed at them, and threatened violence... only it wasn't a Tea Party. No, it was a protest in Phoenix against their new illegal immigration law. Funny, haven't heard Barney Frank or PresBo saying much about THAT...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p48INNGtXh4&feature=player_embedded
The man being led away at the beginning of the video allegedly made various comments to the people gathered to protest the signing of Arizona's new illegal immigration law. I say allegedly because reports vary on what was said. At the beginning of this video, you hear the man tell officers "I'm not starting it," to which an officer replies, "I know."
The result, however, is that officers were assaulted by protesters. You can hear people on the video saying what sounds like, "Get that white boy!" Also heard were epithets such as "F*** you! F***ing racist!" (Ironic that charges of racism follow the hurling of a racial reference, eh?) Water bottles get thrown and bounce off of police officers. It got to the point that police had to draw mace canisters to get the crowd to back off.
At the very end of the video, we hear a man yelling what SOUNDS like: "F*** him, that American piece of sh**!" Now the audio isn't very clear... there's a mob howling in the background. But that's what it sounds like to me... You be the judge.
Protesters claim that they were "provoked" by words, and that's why they erupted into a violent mob. But you know, Tea Partiers have been subjected to a lot more provocation than that and haven't started a single riot.
So why aren't we hearing politicians denounce the violence? They were quick to paint Tea Party protesters as violent racists EVEN THOUGH there is not a single videotaped incident showing Tea Partiers rioting. So why aren't they denouncing REAL violent protests when we see them?
Oh silly me, it's obvious. Those politicians AGREE with the protesters in this case, and disagree with Tea Parties. That's reason enough to slander us and ignore those who have committed real violence.
Rioting and the associated violence are WRONG, period, regardless of the "reason" for it. And the reaction to this event by the MSM and our politicians is also wrong. Denounce it, people, don't excuse it.
So the good news for Democrats is that a protest FINALLY turned violent. The bad news is that it was one of their own protests instead of a Tea Party.
And that's a fact that could surprise only a liberal.
Read the rest...
Tim James: English-Only Driver Tests
This is an interesting controversy. Tim James, candidate for Alabama Governor, has released a TV commercial calling for English-only driver tests. Currently they are given in 12 languages, and he says they should only be given in English. Watch the TV ad, and then I'll discuss it a bit.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY
Reactions are split on this one. Many say that this is racist and offer a bevy of reasons why. Personally, I tend to agree with him. If you want to drive in this state, you should speak and read English.
My reasoning is simple. All of the road signs are in English. If you can't read those signs, it could cause problems. When you are pulled over by an officer, he will most likely will be able to speak only English. If there is road work going on and there are special signs posted and/or a flag-man directing traffic, or maybe even just a power outage and police officers directing traffic, the language used will be English.
My point is that ALL of the communications associated with driving will be in English. That being the case, isn't it reasonable for drivers on our public roads to be fluent in that language?
Yes, the issue is an easy one to politicize and make a big fuss over. But when you come right down to it, it's just not that unreasonable. If the state of Alabama can, in the name of traffic safety, require us to wear seat belts and have automobile insurance, then there is no reason why they can't ALSO require drivers to understand English.
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ohsvJHkbY
Reactions are split on this one. Many say that this is racist and offer a bevy of reasons why. Personally, I tend to agree with him. If you want to drive in this state, you should speak and read English.
My reasoning is simple. All of the road signs are in English. If you can't read those signs, it could cause problems. When you are pulled over by an officer, he will most likely will be able to speak only English. If there is road work going on and there are special signs posted and/or a flag-man directing traffic, or maybe even just a power outage and police officers directing traffic, the language used will be English.
My point is that ALL of the communications associated with driving will be in English. That being the case, isn't it reasonable for drivers on our public roads to be fluent in that language?
Yes, the issue is an easy one to politicize and make a big fuss over. But when you come right down to it, it's just not that unreasonable. If the state of Alabama can, in the name of traffic safety, require us to wear seat belts and have automobile insurance, then there is no reason why they can't ALSO require drivers to understand English.
Read the rest...
GOP Blocks Debate On Wall Street "Reform"
So the Democrats got their ObamaCare bill passed and view it as a great victory. Now they focus on Wall Street "reform"... and are following the same pattern that they did with ObamaCare. Instead of crafting a reasonable bill that has a chance of receiving bipartisan support, they actually REJECTED a bipartisan solution and want to open debate on a highly liberal measure that would AGAIN concentrate power over private-sector economics in government hands. And, I might add, it would fail to "solve" any problems.
And, not unexpectedly, the GOP voted against opening debate on the bill... and now the political maneuvering starts in earnest.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/94485-gop-blocks-wall-st-bill
Democrats are going to try and use this for political purposes, to again paint the GOP as the "party of no," friends of wall street bankers, enemies of ordinary citizens, and maybe they even cheated on their fourth-grade spelling tests. Make no mistake, the coming fooforah is entirely engineered to benefit Democrats for their upcoming elections.
The Democrats COULD defuse the entire situation by changing the legislation to actually BE bipartisan in nature... but they don't want to do that.
Look, the bill in question is a mistake that won't work. It ignores a LARGE chunk of the problem, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and focuses instead on some new "consumer protection" agency. And that won't do ANYTHING to fix the things that caused the problems in the first place.
The fundamental rift isn't that Democrats want reform and Republicans don't. The fundamental rift is that Democrats want government to step in and control the private sector and Republicans don't... at least, not as much. I find myself identifying more with the GOP on this one, even though I'm not convinced they really mean it. A huge government takeover of the private sector isn't the answer, especially since the government bears a large portion of responsibility for creating the meltdown in the first place!
Can the government fix what the government broke? No, not using the same philosophy that broke the system in the first place.
So Democrats aren't really offering a workable solution... passing a bill is all the victory they want or need. It doesn't have to really WORK, it just has to earn them points so they can get re-elected. Why? Because they can always blame somebody else for the failure of the bill (Bush, the GOP, the economy, you name it) and then start "tweaking it" to "make it work better."
They don't want to fix the system, because that would take away the urgency. You HAVE noticed, I trust, that EVERYTHING is being painted by PresBo and the Democrats as "critical," an "emergency" that needs "immediate action?" And that every such bill being passed is "historical" in nature?
That's the playbook they're playing from: create a crisis, then use that crisis to justify whatever it is that you want to do.
Read the rest...
And, not unexpectedly, the GOP voted against opening debate on the bill... and now the political maneuvering starts in earnest.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/94485-gop-blocks-wall-st-bill
Senate Republicans held ranks on Monday and blocked a Democratic effort to overhaul the financial system and crack down on Wall Street.
In a 57-41 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed to the Wall Street bill.
One Senate Democrat, Ben Nelson (Neb.), joined Republicans in voting against the motion. Nelson had reportedly been pushing for a provision backed by Warren Buffett that would have largely exempted existing derivatives contracts from the bill’s new rules.
Democrats are going to try and use this for political purposes, to again paint the GOP as the "party of no," friends of wall street bankers, enemies of ordinary citizens, and maybe they even cheated on their fourth-grade spelling tests. Make no mistake, the coming fooforah is entirely engineered to benefit Democrats for their upcoming elections.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) immediately moved to intensify the pressure on Republicans by scheduling additional procedural votes on Tuesday and Wednesday that would open debate on the financial reform bill.
President Barack Obama issued a statement to express his “deep disappointment” that Republicans had blocked opening debate on the measure as other Democrats in the House and Senate rushed to put out statements charging the GOP with holding up the bill.
Reid will have the Senate vote on a motion to reconsider the measure Tuesday and also set up a new vote on a motion to proceed to the bill for Wednesday.
Democrats believe the series of votes will give them political ammunition against the GOP even as they continue negotiations on the issue with Republicans.
The Democrats COULD defuse the entire situation by changing the legislation to actually BE bipartisan in nature... but they don't want to do that.
Look, the bill in question is a mistake that won't work. It ignores a LARGE chunk of the problem, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and focuses instead on some new "consumer protection" agency. And that won't do ANYTHING to fix the things that caused the problems in the first place.
The fundamental rift isn't that Democrats want reform and Republicans don't. The fundamental rift is that Democrats want government to step in and control the private sector and Republicans don't... at least, not as much. I find myself identifying more with the GOP on this one, even though I'm not convinced they really mean it. A huge government takeover of the private sector isn't the answer, especially since the government bears a large portion of responsibility for creating the meltdown in the first place!
Can the government fix what the government broke? No, not using the same philosophy that broke the system in the first place.
So Democrats aren't really offering a workable solution... passing a bill is all the victory they want or need. It doesn't have to really WORK, it just has to earn them points so they can get re-elected. Why? Because they can always blame somebody else for the failure of the bill (Bush, the GOP, the economy, you name it) and then start "tweaking it" to "make it work better."
They don't want to fix the system, because that would take away the urgency. You HAVE noticed, I trust, that EVERYTHING is being painted by PresBo and the Democrats as "critical," an "emergency" that needs "immediate action?" And that every such bill being passed is "historical" in nature?
That's the playbook they're playing from: create a crisis, then use that crisis to justify whatever it is that you want to do.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 26, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Slowly I Turn...
I just liked the whole "Niagara Falls!" and "Slowly I turn" lines. Notice them use the comedic principle of threes. The first to introduce the concept, the second to set the pattern, and the third for maximum comedic effect... the beginning of a fourth was used here to expedite the exit.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=9pQii1L8fGk&feature=related
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=9pQii1L8fGk&feature=related
Read the rest...
Are Tea Partiers Violent?
We've heard it over and over again from liberal politicians and the mainstream media: Tea Parties are racist and violent, at the very least. The latest example of this attitude comes from Brandeis University, which is hosting an event on "Right-Wing Radicalism"... equating modern day Tea Parties to Nazis.
http://michaelgraham.com/archives/i-wonder-if-brandeis-has-invited-nancy-pelosi-to-speak-at-this-event/
Of course, this isn't new... we've all heard the references to "brown shirts" and comparisons to KKK rallies. But what is the truth? Are Tea Parties really filled with violence and hate? To find out the answer to this question, let's ask the police who patrol these events.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0419/Are-tea-party-rallies-given-preferential-treatment-by-police
And that's the truth of it. I've been involved in organizing one Tea Party, and have attended more than that, and I have yet to see the shows of racism, hatred, and violence that we hear talked about so much.
At the original Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party in 2009, we drew approximately 2,500 attendees for an hour in the middle of a weekday. The messages from the speakers were positive and constructive, and the event was a great success.
Imagine my surprise the very next day to discover that we had "a few hundred" participants at a "racist" rally. Pictures of TWO signs brought by individuals were taken to prove the latter charge... ignoring the many remaining signs that bore positive messages, primarily of fiscal responsibility and patriotism.
The event sprawled across the street, and both sides were filled with people... but we had no trouble. No violence, no angry shouts, and no racial epithets. After the event, the State House sent out staff to "clean up" after us. They commented on how little there was for them to clean up... and that this wasn't normal.
So pardon me if I view media and liberal attempts to paint us as violent racists with more than normal skepticism. It just doesn't fit in with what I've seen with my own eyes.
The truth is that, by and large, the Tea Party events are about as polite and organized as it is possible for large events to get. And that's not an accident, that's just our nature.
Read the rest...
http://michaelgraham.com/archives/i-wonder-if-brandeis-has-invited-nancy-pelosi-to-speak-at-this-event/
Of course, this isn't new... we've all heard the references to "brown shirts" and comparisons to KKK rallies. But what is the truth? Are Tea Parties really filled with violence and hate? To find out the answer to this question, let's ask the police who patrol these events.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0419/Are-tea-party-rallies-given-preferential-treatment-by-police
On Monday, the Christian Science Monitor bucked its mainstream peers by reporting something truthful about the TEA party movement: police officials have begun to relax security requirements at conservative rallies because of the remarkable absence of violence.
Yes, you read that right: despite nonstop media warnings about hateful protests, violence from TEA party attendants is so nonexistent that police feel safe allowing them to bring large items and sometimes even guns.
And that's the truth of it. I've been involved in organizing one Tea Party, and have attended more than that, and I have yet to see the shows of racism, hatred, and violence that we hear talked about so much.
At the original Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party in 2009, we drew approximately 2,500 attendees for an hour in the middle of a weekday. The messages from the speakers were positive and constructive, and the event was a great success.
Imagine my surprise the very next day to discover that we had "a few hundred" participants at a "racist" rally. Pictures of TWO signs brought by individuals were taken to prove the latter charge... ignoring the many remaining signs that bore positive messages, primarily of fiscal responsibility and patriotism.
The event sprawled across the street, and both sides were filled with people... but we had no trouble. No violence, no angry shouts, and no racial epithets. After the event, the State House sent out staff to "clean up" after us. They commented on how little there was for them to clean up... and that this wasn't normal.
So pardon me if I view media and liberal attempts to paint us as violent racists with more than normal skepticism. It just doesn't fit in with what I've seen with my own eyes.
The truth is that, by and large, the Tea Party events are about as polite and organized as it is possible for large events to get. And that's not an accident, that's just our nature.
Read the rest...
Draw Mohammed Day!
Okay, we all know that Islamic extremists somewhat overreact when it comes to Mohammed. More than once, death threats have been issued for fairly innocuous behavior. Cartoonists being threatened for drawing Mohammed is becoming almost passe'. The latest event involves South Park censoring a gag.
So a cartoonist has decided to declare May 20th as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170
I find this incredibly funny, and encourage anybody who is interested to participate. Had I any skill at drawing, I might contribute a doodle or two, but as it is, my skills lie elsewhere.
So, if there are any cartoonists out there looking for something to do, you might want to consider participating in "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"
Along similar lines, apparently an Iranian cleric claimed the other day that scantily clad women are responsible for the recent earthquakes we've had. So a concerned citizen from Indiana has decided to test this theory by sponsoring a cleavage-exposing event that she calls "Boobquake!"
http://ow.ly/1Da8L
So either participate in today's Boobquake or in next month's "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." They both make important statements about the world.
(grin) Only in America, man, only in America.
Read the rest...
So a cartoonist has decided to declare May 20th as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170
After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohamed Day."
Norris told KIRO Radio's Dave Ross that cartoonists are meant to challenge the lines of political correctness. "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC."
"As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid," Norris said.
Norris has asked other artists to submit drawings of any religious figure to be posted as part of Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor (CACAH) on May 20th.
On her website Norris explains this is not meant to disrespect any religion, but rather meant to protect people's right to express themselves.
I find this incredibly funny, and encourage anybody who is interested to participate. Had I any skill at drawing, I might contribute a doodle or two, but as it is, my skills lie elsewhere.
So, if there are any cartoonists out there looking for something to do, you might want to consider participating in "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"
Along similar lines, apparently an Iranian cleric claimed the other day that scantily clad women are responsible for the recent earthquakes we've had. So a concerned citizen from Indiana has decided to test this theory by sponsoring a cleavage-exposing event that she calls "Boobquake!"
http://ow.ly/1Da8L
It started as a college student’s snide response to an Iranian cleric’s assertion that scantily clad women cause earthquakes.
But as of Thursday, it had become much, much bigger.
Jen McCreight, a self-described atheist, feminist and geek “trapped in Indiana,” took issue with Hojatoleslam Kazim Sadeghi’s message during Friday prayers in Tehran, the Iranian capital.
The hard-line cleric, who was standing in for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, said women who dress provocatively – thereby tempting men – are to blame for the world’s temblors...
McCreight, who is pursuing a double major in genetics and evolution, took to her blog, Blag Hag, on Monday, demanding that the world’s women band together in a scientific experiment to test the merits of Sadeghi’s hypothesis.
“Time for a Boobquake,” she wrote. “On Monday, April 26, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. ... I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that's your preferred form of immodesty.”
She continued, “With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I'm sure [Sadeghi] can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble.”
So either participate in today's Boobquake or in next month's "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." They both make important statements about the world.
(grin) Only in America, man, only in America.
Read the rest...
Counterpunch! How Important Is Reducing Our National Debt?
Welcome to Counterpunch! Episode #7. Today's topic: How important is reducing our national debt?
I take the position that our debt is too large and rising too rapidly for us to avoid very bad consequences unless we act now. Sherry Walker for Left In Alabama takes the position that we should keep increasing the debt "until the current economic crisis is over."
http://www.politicsalabama.org/files/Counterpunch/CP_Episode7.mp3
Let us know what you think of the Counterpunch feature.
Here is the transcript of my position:
Paying down our national debt is probably the single most important task that our Congressmen SHOULD be dealing with… even though they aren’t. Instead of inventing new and preposterous ways to spend more money, we should be looking for ways to reduce our massive debt.
Look, there are danger signs all around us. China is becoming reluctant to purchase more of our bonds… because they’re afraid we won’t pay them all back. At a recent auction to sell our bonds to foreign nations, we had to increase the interest rates in order to sell any of them at all.
Moody’s warned us recently that if we didn’t take steps SOON to start reducing our debt, the United States would lose its AAA credit rating.
Our national debt will soon reach 63% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and that’s a point where many other countries have experienced serious problems because of their high debt loads. At the rate we’re going, our national debt will exceed 90% of our GDP within a decade… and THAT particular landmark almost always leads to financial disaster for any country unwise enough to reach it.
Remember Greece, going bankrupt earlier this year? Don’t think it can’t happen to us.
And it will, unless we STOP spending more money than we have and start reducing our national debt.
For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens
Read the rest...
I take the position that our debt is too large and rising too rapidly for us to avoid very bad consequences unless we act now. Sherry Walker for Left In Alabama takes the position that we should keep increasing the debt "until the current economic crisis is over."
http://www.politicsalabama.org/files/Counterpunch/CP_Episode7.mp3
Let us know what you think of the Counterpunch feature.
Here is the transcript of my position:
Paying down our national debt is probably the single most important task that our Congressmen SHOULD be dealing with… even though they aren’t. Instead of inventing new and preposterous ways to spend more money, we should be looking for ways to reduce our massive debt.
Look, there are danger signs all around us. China is becoming reluctant to purchase more of our bonds… because they’re afraid we won’t pay them all back. At a recent auction to sell our bonds to foreign nations, we had to increase the interest rates in order to sell any of them at all.
Moody’s warned us recently that if we didn’t take steps SOON to start reducing our debt, the United States would lose its AAA credit rating.
Our national debt will soon reach 63% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and that’s a point where many other countries have experienced serious problems because of their high debt loads. At the rate we’re going, our national debt will exceed 90% of our GDP within a decade… and THAT particular landmark almost always leads to financial disaster for any country unwise enough to reach it.
Remember Greece, going bankrupt earlier this year? Don’t think it can’t happen to us.
And it will, unless we STOP spending more money than we have and start reducing our national debt.
For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens
Read the rest...
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Hotdogs And Mustard
One of my favorite bits was the routine they did several times about hotdogs and mustard.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p9ovpkeIrs
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p9ovpkeIrs
Read the rest...
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Buying Gas
Who knew that buying gas could be so entertaining?
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5ecJ_JLRec4&feature=related
Read the rest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5ecJ_JLRec4&feature=related
Read the rest...
Friday, April 23, 2010
Afternoon Humor: 13 X 7 = 28
Abbott & Costello regularly played games with math. This routine was used in several movies, and shows how they can play with number to an hilarious end. Watch and laugh as Costello tries to prove that 13 times 7 = 28.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4NCXOX0p8
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4NCXOX0p8
Read the rest...
School Teacher Says "Give Up The Bucks"
Here's the story. Illinois has a pretty bad budget deficit (i.e. they're spending a LOT more than they have) and either have to raise taxes or start cutting expenditures in their educational system. So school teachers were given time off to participate in a rally to support the tax increases. And this... wonderful teacher... ahem... decided to offer her take on the situation.
If the player doesn't load, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdREEcx0-Qc&feature=player_embedded
Is this really what it has come to? Government teachers chanting "give up the bucks" and "where's the cash, we need it fast?"
Does ANYBODY except me see a problem with this?
This woman who, regrettably, actually teaches Illinois children, embodies the entitlement attitude that pervades government today... Money doesn't belong to the taxpayers who earned it, it belongs to the government that "needs" it. And if we taxpayers don't agree with that, then there is something wrong with US.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Though most aren't so blatant about it, most school teachers would rather raise taxes than cut education spending.
So, to answer this woman's chanted question, I will answer. The money is in the hands of those who earned it, and regardless of your "need" you will not be allowed to steal it.
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't load, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdREEcx0-Qc&feature=player_embedded
Is this really what it has come to? Government teachers chanting "give up the bucks" and "where's the cash, we need it fast?"
Does ANYBODY except me see a problem with this?
This woman who, regrettably, actually teaches Illinois children, embodies the entitlement attitude that pervades government today... Money doesn't belong to the taxpayers who earned it, it belongs to the government that "needs" it. And if we taxpayers don't agree with that, then there is something wrong with US.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not. Though most aren't so blatant about it, most school teachers would rather raise taxes than cut education spending.
So, to answer this woman's chanted question, I will answer. The money is in the hands of those who earned it, and regardless of your "need" you will not be allowed to steal it.
Read the rest...
Dems Want To Regulate Premiums - A Fascist Step?
Democrats have introduced a bill to modify ObamaCare and increase government's control over the health care industry... just as predicted. This modification would allow government to control health insurance premiums just like they do some electricity rates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/health/policy/21health.html
That short blurb pretty much explains why they want to do this. You see, if everyone has to be accepted for coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, then premiums will rise. Not may, will... the insurance companies have to do SOMETHING to balance costs.
This is already happening now that insurance companies will cover pre-existing conditions for children... the first thing that happened was a series of insurance rate hikes. And what does that mean for Democrats in the fall elections? Unhappy people paying more for health insurance means fewer voting Democrat... and they can't have that, now can they?
So they want to change the law in order to protect their phony-baloney jobs in the fall.
This law will have government bureaucrats making business decisions for health insurance companies. In order to prevent "unreasonable" rate hikes, we have to agree on what is unreasonable, right? Actually, we don't... that decision will be made by a small group of people appointed by the ruling party in Washington.
That isn't anything remotely resembling a free market. Let's see, what do we call it when businesses are privately owned but run by the government? Hmmm... That would be fascism, now wouldn't it? Here's a bit on fascism from Mussolini's perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
And isn't that what we're seeing today? PresBo claims our capitalist system is causing all of these problems and that government intervention is the only way to fix it... just like Mussolini said.
At this moment in time, the US government owns all or part of FIVE-HUNDRED formerly private companies. Not one or two, but more than five hundred!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/12/new_bill_ends_government_run_companies_96956.html
We may, in fact, be witnessing the conversion of the United States into a fascist form of government. We don't by any means meet all of the criteria, but we meet more today than we did ten years ago.
And if that doesn't upset you, then nothing will.
Read the rest...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/health/policy/21health.html
Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.
Reviving the proposal on Tuesday, Mr. Harkin said: “Rate review authority is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies’ jacking up premiums simply because they can. Protections must be in place to ensure that companies do not take advantage of current market conditions before health reform fundamentally changes the way they do business in 2014.”
That short blurb pretty much explains why they want to do this. You see, if everyone has to be accepted for coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, then premiums will rise. Not may, will... the insurance companies have to do SOMETHING to balance costs.
This is already happening now that insurance companies will cover pre-existing conditions for children... the first thing that happened was a series of insurance rate hikes. And what does that mean for Democrats in the fall elections? Unhappy people paying more for health insurance means fewer voting Democrat... and they can't have that, now can they?
So they want to change the law in order to protect their phony-baloney jobs in the fall.
This law will have government bureaucrats making business decisions for health insurance companies. In order to prevent "unreasonable" rate hikes, we have to agree on what is unreasonable, right? Actually, we don't... that decision will be made by a small group of people appointed by the ruling party in Washington.
That isn't anything remotely resembling a free market. Let's see, what do we call it when businesses are privately owned but run by the government? Hmmm... That would be fascism, now wouldn't it? Here's a bit on fascism from Mussolini's perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism's opposition to "decadent capitalism" that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870) followed by static capitalism (1870–1914) and then reaching its final form of decadent capitalism, also known as supercapitalism beginning in 1914. Mussolini argued that Italian Fascism was in favour of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and technical developments but claimed that it did not favour supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy's agricultural sector.
Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the modern use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism. Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption. Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously." He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that this step could be seen either as a form of capitalism which involved state intervention, saying "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."
And isn't that what we're seeing today? PresBo claims our capitalist system is causing all of these problems and that government intervention is the only way to fix it... just like Mussolini said.
At this moment in time, the US government owns all or part of FIVE-HUNDRED formerly private companies. Not one or two, but more than five hundred!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/12/new_bill_ends_government_run_companies_96956.html
The federal government currently holds various ownership stakes in over 500 private companies. This alarming fact, along with the events of recent days in the auto industry, should serve as a wakeup call for all those concerned about preserving the free market principles upon which our nation was founded. As we have been so rudely reminded, government ownership of private companies threatens the fairness of markets, creates coercive business conditions, and allows government bureaucrats to dictate business decisions.
Government ownership interests in private companies create an uneven playing field. Companies aided by the government are given an unfair competitive advantage that private companies do not enjoy. Because of this influence, government entities distort the competitive process and lead to inefficient market outcomes which favor the government-owned entity.
We may, in fact, be witnessing the conversion of the United States into a fascist form of government. We don't by any means meet all of the criteria, but we meet more today than we did ten years ago.
And if that doesn't upset you, then nothing will.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Who's On First?
Another comedy team that I grew up with was the incomparable Abbot & Costello. Comedy doesn't get any better than that, let me tell you. Their single most famous routine was "Who's On First?", so here it is. It is preceded by a short routine that is pretty typical of their mathematical chicanery where money was concerned, "Two tens for a five."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1fJDIXEq9w
By the way, I intend to keep this once-a-day afternoon humor thing going for a while longer... Somehow, I need the lift that all of these wonderful old comedy routines bring with them. I hope you enjoy them, as well.
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1fJDIXEq9w
By the way, I intend to keep this once-a-day afternoon humor thing going for a while longer... Somehow, I need the lift that all of these wonderful old comedy routines bring with them. I hope you enjoy them, as well.
Read the rest...
Congress Gets Expert Advice From... Sigourney Weaver?
Yes, you read that right. Congress is conducting a hearing and will be getting expert testimony on ocean acidification from actress Sigourney Weaver. Heck, why not... she played an environmental scientist in the movie "Avatar," right?
But don't you think Congress might have better ways to spend their time?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/22/ms-weaver-goes-to-washington/
I mean really, maybe there could be better sources of information than an actress? Maybe?
All those who think this is more than a little ridiculous, raise your hands.
Read the rest...
But don't you think Congress might have better ways to spend their time?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/22/ms-weaver-goes-to-washington/
Today in Washington: actress Sigourney Weaver testifies before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on the topic of ocean acidification. Because, you know, she played an environmental scientist in Avatar. It’s the best fit since Jane Fonda, Jessica Lange, and Sissy Spacek — all of whom had played farm women — testified on America’s agricultural crisis.
Congress doesn’t have time to vote on presidential nominations. It doesn’t bother engaging in serious oversight of presidential power and civil liberties abuses. It looks at the ceiling and whistles as the national debt approaches Greek levels. But members of Congress have time to listen to an actress discuss the topic of ocean acidification.
I mean really, maybe there could be better sources of information than an actress? Maybe?
Of course, this is not just a one-day thing for Sigourney Weaver. She also traveled this month to Brazil to try to stop the construction of a dam. Because who would know better than a Hollywood-Manhattan actress how to make tradeoffs between energy needs and environmental risks in Brazil?
Now let me just say that I’m not arguing that ocean acidification isn’t an important topic. And I’m not criticizing Avatar or its defense of property rights. I’m just questioning whether Sigourney Weaver, Sissy Spacek, Jeff Daniels, Nick Jonas, and the Backstreet Boys have the kind of expertise that Congress ought to draw on in deciding how to run my life. Or then again, maybe planning the economy and running other people’s lives is farce at best, and Congress should just hold hearings with Will Ferrell and John Cleese.
All those who think this is more than a little ridiculous, raise your hands.
Read the rest...
PresBo Contradicts Self On VAT
Okay, so an Obama advisor comes out and says that we should pass a VAT in order to reduce the deficit... followed quickly by Presidential Spokesperson Robert Gibbs saying that PresBo is NOT considering a VAT.
See?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/19/white_house_obama_is_not_considering_value-added_tax.html
Then Obama opens his mouth and contradicts Gibbs... and White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is NOT considering a VAT.
Here is PresBo in his own words:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/21/obama_value-added_tax_a_novel_idea.html
Now, doesn't this sound like he's leaving the door open (i.e. considering) a VAT?
"You know, I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States, and before I start saying that this makes sense or that makes sense I want to get a better picture of what our options are."
It certainly sounds like he hasn't ruled it out... so I wish PresBo would get his story straight, pick one position, and stick with it.
You can read an article about this at the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax;_ylt=Ase7uzGC_M92xhtRdg3C69iyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJkZG5zY2tuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDIxL3VzX29iYW1hX3RheARjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzdWdnZXN0
Read the rest...
See?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/19/white_house_obama_is_not_considering_value-added_tax.html
Then Obama opens his mouth and contradicts Gibbs... and White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is NOT considering a VAT.
Here is PresBo in his own words:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/21/obama_value-added_tax_a_novel_idea.html
Now, doesn't this sound like he's leaving the door open (i.e. considering) a VAT?
"You know, I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States, and before I start saying that this makes sense or that makes sense I want to get a better picture of what our options are."
It certainly sounds like he hasn't ruled it out... so I wish PresBo would get his story straight, pick one position, and stick with it.
You can read an article about this at the following link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax;_ylt=Ase7uzGC_M92xhtRdg3C69iyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJkZG5zY2tuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDIxL3VzX29iYW1hX3RheARjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzdWdnZXN0
Read the rest...
Apologies For My Absence
Guys, I want to take this opportunity to apologize for my recent inactivity on the blog, but I had higher priorities to occupy my time. My mother has been very ill for some time, and Friday I received a call telling me she had taken a significant turn for the worst. I left town to spend time in Florida with my mother, as well as my brothers and sisters.
Late Tuesday afternoon, my mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. She was surrounded by her family and people she loved, and I am certain she knew it at the end. She is in a better place, now, and is at peace.
I know this isn't political, but if you have a spare moment or two, would you please shoot a quick prayer heavenward for her? I would appreciate it.
If anybody wishes to donate to her charity, she has been active with the Relay For Life for MANY years, and donations can be made at the following link:
http://main.acsevents.org/goto/BeaGivens
That is my mother's personal page for her team in the Relay For Life event which takes place this weekend in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and any donations will be greatly appreciated.
The picture you see was taken at the 2009 Relay For Life event, at which she had a place of honor for all her past work AND the fact that she was a two-time survivor of cancer. My father died of cancer when I was heading to college, and my Aunt Nancy died of it just a few years ago. It is a very nasty disease that CAN be beaten, and the American Cancer Society is working to do that.
Pray for my mother or not, as you wish. Donate to her charity or not, as you wish. I just wanted to take this time to ask... and to thank those who do in advance.
God bless you all.
Read the rest...
Late Tuesday afternoon, my mother passed away from pancreatic cancer. She was surrounded by her family and people she loved, and I am certain she knew it at the end. She is in a better place, now, and is at peace.
I know this isn't political, but if you have a spare moment or two, would you please shoot a quick prayer heavenward for her? I would appreciate it.
If anybody wishes to donate to her charity, she has been active with the Relay For Life for MANY years, and donations can be made at the following link:
http://main.acsevents.org/goto/BeaGivens
That is my mother's personal page for her team in the Relay For Life event which takes place this weekend in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and any donations will be greatly appreciated.
The picture you see was taken at the 2009 Relay For Life event, at which she had a place of honor for all her past work AND the fact that she was a two-time survivor of cancer. My father died of cancer when I was heading to college, and my Aunt Nancy died of it just a few years ago. It is a very nasty disease that CAN be beaten, and the American Cancer Society is working to do that.
Pray for my mother or not, as you wish. Donate to her charity or not, as you wish. I just wanted to take this time to ask... and to thank those who do in advance.
God bless you all.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Mom Always Liked You Best!
Here's a radio clip of the Smother's Brothers classic "Mom always liked you best" routine. It was taken from a Dr. Demento broadcast, so you can ignore the intro music and ending commercials.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDtLmMf3mU
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDtLmMf3mU
Read the rest...
Monday, April 19, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Quando Caliente El Sol
Here is their rendition of Quando Caliente El Sol.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=FrU_C7toDJk&feature=related
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=FrU_C7toDJk&feature=related
Read the rest...
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Red River Valley
The Smothers Brothers sing "Red River Valley"... this is a good one.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCIvvg5OZXw
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCIvvg5OZXw
Read the rest...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Afternoon Humor: Yo-Yo Man
One of the classic Smothers Brothers routines is the Yo-Yo Man... enter the state of Yo.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR39tRbDcBk&feature=PlayList&p=582554D86BBC4381&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR39tRbDcBk&feature=PlayList&p=582554D86BBC4381&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2
Read the rest...
Friday, April 16, 2010
Afternoon Humor: My Old Man
The Smother's Brothers had their own TV variety show for a while. During that show, they continuously defied the censors and pushed the boundaries... this clip is the one that led directly to their show being canceled. And it is FUNNY!
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=iFVrtjUmz7c&feature=related
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=iFVrtjUmz7c&feature=related
Read the rest...
Were The Tea Parties "Crashed" Yesterday?
I don't know if you were aware of it, but liberals across the nation were swearing they would "crash the tea parties." They intended to attend the rallies, PRETEND to be Tea Party supporters, and do objectionable things... hold up signs with misspelled words or racist/hateful messages, shout insults and racist epithets, and give interviews to news reporters expressing extreme racist and/or violent opinions and messages.
No, I swear... this was a real movement.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/
The site looks much different today than it has in recent weeks... indeed, it's mostly gone. But the movement urged infiltration of Tea Party rallies with the express purpose of misrepresenting the rallies to destroy their reputation.
So, how'd that go? Apparently, not all that well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35901.html
Now, this raises several questions in my mind. WHY did this effort fizzle? I can think of two major reasons.
First, it could mean they were unable to gather the numbers of people necessary to make the resistance effective. That would indicate that the momentum and force behind the Tea Party movement eclipses that of Obama supporters.
Second, it could mean that, after time for sober reflection, they realized how dishonest and despicable they would be if they had to resort to lies and fraudulent behavior to discredit a movement that seems to be gaining in size, passion, and popularity.
I hope, with all my heart, that the second reason applies here. Either way, the news is good for Tea Partiers, but the second reason is also good for opponents. It's not good to embrace that kind of behavior to achieve an end, no matter your intensity.
Read the rest...
No, I swear... this was a real movement.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/
The site looks much different today than it has in recent weeks... indeed, it's mostly gone. But the movement urged infiltration of Tea Party rallies with the express purpose of misrepresenting the rallies to destroy their reputation.
So, how'd that go? Apparently, not all that well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35901.html
After several days of hype and hand-wringing about liberal plans to infiltrate Thursday’s tea party rallies, the great 2010 Tax Day Tea Party Crash did not produce much of a bang in Washington.
To be sure, a handful of obvious crashers engaged in some mostly non-confrontational back-and-forth with tea party activists at a Thursday evening rally that drew thousands to Washington’s National Mall near the Washington Monument. And some less overt crashers subtly mocked activists from amidst their ranks at both the evening rally on the Mall and an earlier event at Freedom Plaza near the White House. And there could have been other infiltrators who evaded immediate detection.
But activists and organizers interviewed by POLITICO said the mischief was nowhere near as widespread or disruptive as they feared earlier in the week, when a wave of attention focused on a website called CrashtheTeaParty.org that encouraged liberals to pretend to be tea partiers, attend rallies and voice fringe sentiments to marginalize the movement (the website appears to have been stripped of most of its content Thursday).
Now, this raises several questions in my mind. WHY did this effort fizzle? I can think of two major reasons.
First, it could mean they were unable to gather the numbers of people necessary to make the resistance effective. That would indicate that the momentum and force behind the Tea Party movement eclipses that of Obama supporters.
Second, it could mean that, after time for sober reflection, they realized how dishonest and despicable they would be if they had to resort to lies and fraudulent behavior to discredit a movement that seems to be gaining in size, passion, and popularity.
I hope, with all my heart, that the second reason applies here. Either way, the news is good for Tea Partiers, but the second reason is also good for opponents. It's not good to embrace that kind of behavior to achieve an end, no matter your intensity.
Read the rest...
A Question Of Intelligence?
Would you say our founding fathers were fairly smart people? Reasonable men? They weren't perfect, I'll admit that readily, but they were smart enough to author the greatest document of freedom and liberty that the world has ever known. So what did they have to say that might have some relevance to how Obama and the liberals want to govern today?
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2010/04/13/reasonable-men/
So far in his term of office, everything he's done is "necessary" for one reason or another. Every tax or usurpation of power "must be done" to stave off this disaster or that calamity.
What is the nature of government?
And what is the nature of GOOD government?
And what of Obama's habit of borrowing money to spend today what won't actually be earned for a few generations?
Liberals like to say that the Constitution is a "living document," and most commonly reference it only in the breach. In other words, they do their best to get around the Constitution's limits on GOVERNMENT whenever they can.
So these intelligent, reasonable men have shown us the way. We know the standards and values we must uphold. Dare we defend our rights?
Read the rest...
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2010/04/13/reasonable-men/
So far in his term of office, everything he's done is "necessary" for one reason or another. Every tax or usurpation of power "must be done" to stave off this disaster or that calamity.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt, 1783
What is the nature of government?
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” - George Washington
And what is the nature of GOOD government?
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” - Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugral address
And what of Obama's habit of borrowing money to spend today what won't actually be earned for a few generations?
“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Liberals like to say that the Constitution is a "living document," and most commonly reference it only in the breach. In other words, they do their best to get around the Constitution's limits on GOVERNMENT whenever they can.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” - Alexander Hamilton, 1794
So these intelligent, reasonable men have shown us the way. We know the standards and values we must uphold. Dare we defend our rights?
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)