At the Copenhagen summit for climate change, there is a rumor that they are going to declare Carbon Dioxide a deadly gas. Would you think they were stupid? After all CO2 (carbon dioxide) is something that we, as living beings exhale every minute. Then, thanks to the great creation that we live upon, plants take in this waste and spit out oxygen, which bonds with nitrogen and we breath it in.
If true, this is tyranny, and it could lead to a tax on breathing. Can you image having to pay a tax to breath in and out? Would you pay it? I wouldn't. Why should I pay for something that our planet gives us for free.
Rumor is that the globalists and power elite want to be the only people to live on Earth. Common sense has it, that if there are only 5000 people, and they are the power elite, who have never done honest work in their lives, what makes them think that they'll survive alone? I hate to tell them, but without farmers, ranchers, gardeners, they won't be able to grow their own food, or butcher their own food.
Why don't we take these morons and dump them on an island in the middle of the ocean and see how they'd survive without servants.
Rumor also has it, that our idiot of a president will surely sign this stupid treaty and doom us to the death of a thousand cuts.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Would you buy a new house without first looking it over?
Would you buy a house without first walking through it, to make sure all of your furniture will fit? Of course not, then why should a representative or Senator vote on a Bill without first reading it? If our elected officials had any common sense, they wouldn't vote on any Bill set before them, before they'd had the time to read it. At the very least, they should vote "no" until they've actually read the bill.
Take, for instance, the Cap and Trade Bill, and the Health Care Bill in the house and Senate. These bills are 2000 pages each and they have been sprung on the representatives and Senators at the very last minute, no debate is allowed, and the idiots still vote before reading them. I'm guessing that it's the same for the Stimulus bills, and every other bill that runs through congress.
I think that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should take a step back and give the representatives and senators three weeks to read over the bills, then vote. Because as it stands, they are violating the law and forcing people to vote on things they haven't read. I am predicting that if they don't stop this, the American citizens will start a revolution and nobody will be able to stop it, until it's over.
Take, for instance, the Cap and Trade Bill, and the Health Care Bill in the house and Senate. These bills are 2000 pages each and they have been sprung on the representatives and Senators at the very last minute, no debate is allowed, and the idiots still vote before reading them. I'm guessing that it's the same for the Stimulus bills, and every other bill that runs through congress.
I think that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should take a step back and give the representatives and senators three weeks to read over the bills, then vote. Because as it stands, they are violating the law and forcing people to vote on things they haven't read. I am predicting that if they don't stop this, the American citizens will start a revolution and nobody will be able to stop it, until it's over.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Why Relgions should stay out of politics
Can we say, "Un-freakin-believable?" I'll reiterate what I've always said, "Churches should stay out of politics." Why would I say that? It could be because the Church's job isn't to influence policies, or to influence science, but in reality, it is because the Church is supposed to take care of people, without government help. Or maybe it's because of stupidity like this.
As usual, when religion and politics intermingle, people forget about science and about common sense. 350/million is stated as the upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. What would a church know about what happens when it goes above? As a scientist, I can tell you that in the billions of years that the Earth has been around, it has never gone above the 350/million. If anything, everytime CO2 has gone up, plants have flourished and O2 has been released to counteract the CO2.
It it true that we are supposed to be stewards of the world, but that doesn't mean that we need churches telling us what to do, or even governments. We should be working as individuals to fix our problems.
There have been rumors that Al Gore wants his brand of Enviro-nonsense to be recognized as a religion. For Real? Science that 1/2 of the scientists in the world now disagree with should be a religion? What's next, Church of Optimus Prime?
As usual, when religion and politics intermingle, people forget about science and about common sense. 350/million is stated as the upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. What would a church know about what happens when it goes above? As a scientist, I can tell you that in the billions of years that the Earth has been around, it has never gone above the 350/million. If anything, everytime CO2 has gone up, plants have flourished and O2 has been released to counteract the CO2.
It it true that we are supposed to be stewards of the world, but that doesn't mean that we need churches telling us what to do, or even governments. We should be working as individuals to fix our problems.
There have been rumors that Al Gore wants his brand of Enviro-nonsense to be recognized as a religion. For Real? Science that 1/2 of the scientists in the world now disagree with should be a religion? What's next, Church of Optimus Prime?
Hasan psychotic? Why was he promoted to Major?
If you haven't seen my other articles on Major Hasan, you can read them here and here. Today I was browsing the news sites, when I came across this one.
What caught my attention was the following paragraph.
What caught my attention was the following paragraph.
Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials' radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.
Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan's behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that "Islam can save your soul."
I've been working for a living since 1992, and I know from personal experience that on the times when my work was substandard, I was threatened with termination from my jobs. Why then, was Major Hasan not passed over for promotions, and why was he promoted to Major?
I think it could have been one of three reasons.
1) Islamophobia - I think that because he was a Muslim, he was given chance after chance after chance, and all because they didn't want to offend him, or have him go to CAIR and complain that he was terminated because of his religion.
2) Political Correctness - If it had been a Christian Psychologist that gave the "god can save your soul," speech, he or she would have been fired, but since Major Hasan was a religious minority, and he wasn't christian, nobody did anything about it, or did anything but complain.
3) Fear - They were afraid that if they released him, they'd have to answer questions about why they did it, and they just let it go.
To be perfectly honest, if he was all that they say he was, then why did they keep him in the army? Maybe if they had terminated his employment, 14 people would be alive now.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Those crazy lovable russians
Today seems to be a day for whacky news articles. This one, about the Russian's and weather modification made me chuckle.
I suppose if we wanted to attack Russia, we could do it on a day when the air force is doing weather service. (chuckles)
Their economy must be good, if they can afford a city budget of 60bil. But, with all that money, I wonder why they haven't thought about doming the city over. After all, if Houston is thinking about it, surely Moscow would be a good site for one too.
I suppose if we wanted to attack Russia, we could do it on a day when the air force is doing weather service. (chuckles)
Their economy must be good, if they can afford a city budget of 60bil. But, with all that money, I wonder why they haven't thought about doming the city over. After all, if Houston is thinking about it, surely Moscow would be a good site for one too.
Global Warming, for real?
After reading this article, Underwater Cabinet Meeting, I could only shake my head. Come on, do these people not know that we respire carbon dioxide and breath in oxygen?
I also keep wondering if nobody has read the new science reports that state, "Solar flares at a minimum, temperature drops, global warming a myth." Let's take these one at a time:
1) Our local star is the source of heat for our planet. We ride in the third orbital zone and when there are solar flares, it gets hot, and when there aren't it gets cool. Or more accurately, when there are a lot of sun spots, it gets hot, and when there aren't, it gets cold. It's called solar convection and our environment traps the heat under the clouds.
2) If you want to get rid of Carbon Dioxide, stop killing trees, or plant more trees. But then, if we planted more trees, we'd have a green house environment and maybe the ice caps would melt. The world used to be covered in forests as far as the eye could see, and that's why there was an abundance of life and water. When we started stripping the land of trees, we got hot temperatures, no water, and dust storms that blocked the sunlight and radiation from the ground.
Which would you rather have? Con artists getting rich selling so-called, "Carbon indulgences," or be able to keep your money for yourself?
Here's a few things heard on the news in just the last week or so.
1) Electricity companies urge congress to pass cap and trade bill.
Well, duh.....if the cap and trade goes through, they can buy carbon credits and still charge you an arm and a leg for electricity. They'll sell their own investors into slavery to make more profits. It's just greed, pure and simple.
2) Al Gore denies global cooling.
Well, this one may not have been on the radio, but it's true none the less, because he's still trying to hype the global warming myth, because it's his company that will sell the carbon credits and he looks to get very rich on the deal. Again, greed, pure and simple. You can bet he won't have to worry about it, nor does he.
3) NASA/Scientists report drop in temperature/ no change of temperature.
This is a given, considering that for the past ten years, the temperature has only gone up 1/10th of a degree. In that time, it's actually stayed pretty much the same. The only places that have reported increases are places where the gauges are within 50 feet of blacktop. You see, the tar and oil traps heat. So go figure...right?
4) California to outlaw plasma televisions.
Come on really? We'll outlaw modern technology because a 52 inch TV leads to global warming? What would you have us do, get rid of TV's, computers, heaters, air conditioners, ovens, stoves, microwaves, iceboxes, and go back to primitive technology? I am very doubtful that any device that's energy star rated actually contributes to global warming, but then global warming is a myth. If California makes plasma's illegal, then that will be a step toward tyranny. Why would you want to destroy california's economy? Could it be because the "terminator" is just a stupid moron that's actually a liberal?
Or could this be vast conspiracy to get people to move out of california so he can sell it to mexico? (Sarcasm, folks, I don't actually believe that he's capable to running such a fantastic conspiracy, after all, he is an actor, and rather bad one at that.)
So, what we are actually looking at is just another chance for the nanny state to take over and tell you what's best for you and your pocket book.
After all, global warming is just a myth.
I also keep wondering if nobody has read the new science reports that state, "Solar flares at a minimum, temperature drops, global warming a myth." Let's take these one at a time:
1) Our local star is the source of heat for our planet. We ride in the third orbital zone and when there are solar flares, it gets hot, and when there aren't it gets cool. Or more accurately, when there are a lot of sun spots, it gets hot, and when there aren't, it gets cold. It's called solar convection and our environment traps the heat under the clouds.
2) If you want to get rid of Carbon Dioxide, stop killing trees, or plant more trees. But then, if we planted more trees, we'd have a green house environment and maybe the ice caps would melt. The world used to be covered in forests as far as the eye could see, and that's why there was an abundance of life and water. When we started stripping the land of trees, we got hot temperatures, no water, and dust storms that blocked the sunlight and radiation from the ground.
Which would you rather have? Con artists getting rich selling so-called, "Carbon indulgences," or be able to keep your money for yourself?
Here's a few things heard on the news in just the last week or so.
1) Electricity companies urge congress to pass cap and trade bill.
Well, duh.....if the cap and trade goes through, they can buy carbon credits and still charge you an arm and a leg for electricity. They'll sell their own investors into slavery to make more profits. It's just greed, pure and simple.
2) Al Gore denies global cooling.
Well, this one may not have been on the radio, but it's true none the less, because he's still trying to hype the global warming myth, because it's his company that will sell the carbon credits and he looks to get very rich on the deal. Again, greed, pure and simple. You can bet he won't have to worry about it, nor does he.
3) NASA/Scientists report drop in temperature/ no change of temperature.
This is a given, considering that for the past ten years, the temperature has only gone up 1/10th of a degree. In that time, it's actually stayed pretty much the same. The only places that have reported increases are places where the gauges are within 50 feet of blacktop. You see, the tar and oil traps heat. So go figure...right?
4) California to outlaw plasma televisions.
Come on really? We'll outlaw modern technology because a 52 inch TV leads to global warming? What would you have us do, get rid of TV's, computers, heaters, air conditioners, ovens, stoves, microwaves, iceboxes, and go back to primitive technology? I am very doubtful that any device that's energy star rated actually contributes to global warming, but then global warming is a myth. If California makes plasma's illegal, then that will be a step toward tyranny. Why would you want to destroy california's economy? Could it be because the "terminator" is just a stupid moron that's actually a liberal?
Or could this be vast conspiracy to get people to move out of california so he can sell it to mexico? (Sarcasm, folks, I don't actually believe that he's capable to running such a fantastic conspiracy, after all, he is an actor, and rather bad one at that.)
So, what we are actually looking at is just another chance for the nanny state to take over and tell you what's best for you and your pocket book.
After all, global warming is just a myth.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Gays in the Military: Why do you have to flaunt your sexual behavior in public?
After reading this little blurb, I only have one question?
Why do gay people feel that they have to display their sexual behaviors in public?
I've always been a firm believer of "What goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom." If two guys want to stick their joysticks in places not designed for joysticks, then that's their business, but I do draw the line when it comes to public displays of affection.
A soft kiss on the hand, or quick smooch in public is okay, but guys, girls, and those who haven't decided which sex you are: I don't want to know about what goes on in your bedroom, nor do I want to see it in public.
Do I think gays should be able to serve in the armed forces, yes. Do I think it should go further than that? No. Because war is not about Sex on the battlefield, it's about fighting and winning. Do I care if the top general or admiral might be as gay as a three dollar bill? No, but I don't need to hear about his or her sexual exploits.
Do I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married? No, because Marriage is a sacred institution, given to us by the creator in order to procreate.
Do I think it's okay for two committed gay or lesbians to have a relationship? Sure, but don't call it marriage, call it a civil union, call it a gayraige, or something. Don't insult my spirituality or my religion by calling it what it isn't.
Should gay or lesbians be able to adopt? Sure, if two adults are in a committed relationship and feel they can help raise orphans, go for it. I don't care.
Personally, I think the federal government should be out of the marriage game altogether and leave it to we, the people, do decide what our relationships are. It's not up suits in DC to tell you that you can't cohabitate, or get a job, or visit your companion in the hospital, or collect your partners insurance policy after they die. Those things are legalities that we all deserve, regardless of sexual orientation, but you don't have to take it out of the bedroom.
So, in this case, maybe don't ask, don't tell, isn't such a bad thing. After all if you don't ask me about what goes on in my bedroom, I won't ask you what goes on in yours.
Why do gay people feel that they have to display their sexual behaviors in public?
I've always been a firm believer of "What goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom." If two guys want to stick their joysticks in places not designed for joysticks, then that's their business, but I do draw the line when it comes to public displays of affection.
A soft kiss on the hand, or quick smooch in public is okay, but guys, girls, and those who haven't decided which sex you are: I don't want to know about what goes on in your bedroom, nor do I want to see it in public.
Do I think gays should be able to serve in the armed forces, yes. Do I think it should go further than that? No. Because war is not about Sex on the battlefield, it's about fighting and winning. Do I care if the top general or admiral might be as gay as a three dollar bill? No, but I don't need to hear about his or her sexual exploits.
Do I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married? No, because Marriage is a sacred institution, given to us by the creator in order to procreate.
Do I think it's okay for two committed gay or lesbians to have a relationship? Sure, but don't call it marriage, call it a civil union, call it a gayraige, or something. Don't insult my spirituality or my religion by calling it what it isn't.
Should gay or lesbians be able to adopt? Sure, if two adults are in a committed relationship and feel they can help raise orphans, go for it. I don't care.
Personally, I think the federal government should be out of the marriage game altogether and leave it to we, the people, do decide what our relationships are. It's not up suits in DC to tell you that you can't cohabitate, or get a job, or visit your companion in the hospital, or collect your partners insurance policy after they die. Those things are legalities that we all deserve, regardless of sexual orientation, but you don't have to take it out of the bedroom.
So, in this case, maybe don't ask, don't tell, isn't such a bad thing. After all if you don't ask me about what goes on in my bedroom, I won't ask you what goes on in yours.
Friday, October 09, 2009
President Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize
When I heard this, I was understandably confused and angered. I mean, what the hell has President Obama done to deserve a peace prize? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Since becoming president, he has done the following:
It leads to an interesting question: What is the criteria for getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Is it selling out your country, or using your race to accuse everyone else to being racist, or maybe even running roughshod over the constitution?
Since becoming president, he has done the following:
- Gone on the Obama's apology tour
- passed the bailout package that sent us into depression
- passed the cash for clunkers program
- bought out banks
- appointed thieves and socialists and communists as czars
- told Israel to stop building on their own land
- has not taken a firm stance against russia, iran, or Venezuela
- has attempted to put the ex-president of honduras back in power
- has tried to pass the medical reform bill that nobody wants
- has used the race card twice and insulted the harvard police by calling them stupid.
- has had one beer summit
- Has called patriotic Americans terrorist and cowards
- has all but ignored the general on the ground in Afghanistan
- has tried to get the olympics and failed
- has fired one Inspector general for accusing his friend of fraud.
- has broken laws that he himself has signed.
- has buddied up to hugo chavez and fidel castro
- is engaged in destroying our way of life.
It leads to an interesting question: What is the criteria for getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Is it selling out your country, or using your race to accuse everyone else to being racist, or maybe even running roughshod over the constitution?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Religious Leaders should stay out of politics
After two days of silence on health care, Obama re-engaged Wednesday, urging religious leaders to back his proposals and preparing for a pep talk to a much larger audience of liberal activists, whose enthusiasm has been questioned.
To which I say:
Religious leaders should stay out of this fight, because when you mix religion and politics, you always invariably tend to lose the message you want to send. The mandate of the church, as set forth by God and Christ, is to spread the good news of the ressurection of Christ, and the joy of his redeeming grace.
I don't recall a time when God said, "dabble in the politics of mortals.". So that means that God has never been interested in illegal immigration, political refugees, or even healthcare. The creator is, as always, is more interested in your immortal soul than he is your mortal body.
Anytime religious leaders forget their task, they end up going against the will of God and things like what happen in afghanistan and iraq happen, namely people killing for political reasons, but blaming it on God.
To which I say:
Religious leaders should stay out of this fight, because when you mix religion and politics, you always invariably tend to lose the message you want to send. The mandate of the church, as set forth by God and Christ, is to spread the good news of the ressurection of Christ, and the joy of his redeeming grace.
I don't recall a time when God said, "dabble in the politics of mortals.". So that means that God has never been interested in illegal immigration, political refugees, or even healthcare. The creator is, as always, is more interested in your immortal soul than he is your mortal body.
Anytime religious leaders forget their task, they end up going against the will of God and things like what happen in afghanistan and iraq happen, namely people killing for political reasons, but blaming it on God.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
President Obama losing message
The title says it all: President Obama is losing his message on the proposed Healthcare bill that he wants passed before 2010.
It's not just the white house, it's also the democrats who have lost their message. It seems like they have forgotten that they didn't inherit their seats, but were voted into office.
At a recent town hall meeting, a democrat representative screamed at local doctor who just wanted some answers, while another one accused Republicans, senior citizens, and Veterans who want answers, and flock to the meetings to get answers, of being "Political terrorists" no better than Timothy McVeigh.
Of course, it's not all democrats that do this. So far, the "Blue Dog" democrats have held their own by bucking their own party. My hat is off to them. Keep up the good work.
My big question is: Why do those people who don't a single thing about the medical system, want to change it and mess it up? That leads to another question: Why in the hell should illegal immigrants get any part of healthcare in this country, where they legally don't belong?
That question was a brought about by the Hispanic league of representatives, who told Obama not to change a single thing in the bill. They did this because there is a loophole big enough to drive a mack truck through. Nowhere in the bill does it say "Only legal American Citizens can get these benefits." The HLR thinks that if it's left alone, they can get illegal immigrants rights to more free medical care.
I say that this is stupid, and they should remember who voted them in. They don't work for non-citizens, they work for us, the card carrying american citizen. If this is not fixed, it won't make a difference, because as soon as it starts, people who want it for free, so they don't have to pay for it, will flock to it and it'll be as broke as social security, medicare, and medicaide.
Having worked in the medical field, I can tell you that a majority of the ER visits are illegal immigrants who won't pay to go to a private physician, or those who will wait until their sick kid throws up five times at midnight, before going to the ER.
The Emergency room is not for the common cold, flu, or stomach aches, it's for things that will kill you if you don't get treatment.
In short, I believe that the Democrats should leave the medical system alone, and if they want to take on a cause, they can take on the trail lawyers, who are the real reason why medicine is so expensive.
Let's face it, the government doesn't have a good track record with taking care of private information. Because of that, I don't want them to have control over my medical care, or my medical information.
It's not just the white house, it's also the democrats who have lost their message. It seems like they have forgotten that they didn't inherit their seats, but were voted into office.
At a recent town hall meeting, a democrat representative screamed at local doctor who just wanted some answers, while another one accused Republicans, senior citizens, and Veterans who want answers, and flock to the meetings to get answers, of being "Political terrorists" no better than Timothy McVeigh.
Of course, it's not all democrats that do this. So far, the "Blue Dog" democrats have held their own by bucking their own party. My hat is off to them. Keep up the good work.
My big question is: Why do those people who don't a single thing about the medical system, want to change it and mess it up? That leads to another question: Why in the hell should illegal immigrants get any part of healthcare in this country, where they legally don't belong?
That question was a brought about by the Hispanic league of representatives, who told Obama not to change a single thing in the bill. They did this because there is a loophole big enough to drive a mack truck through. Nowhere in the bill does it say "Only legal American Citizens can get these benefits." The HLR thinks that if it's left alone, they can get illegal immigrants rights to more free medical care.
I say that this is stupid, and they should remember who voted them in. They don't work for non-citizens, they work for us, the card carrying american citizen. If this is not fixed, it won't make a difference, because as soon as it starts, people who want it for free, so they don't have to pay for it, will flock to it and it'll be as broke as social security, medicare, and medicaide.
Having worked in the medical field, I can tell you that a majority of the ER visits are illegal immigrants who won't pay to go to a private physician, or those who will wait until their sick kid throws up five times at midnight, before going to the ER.
The Emergency room is not for the common cold, flu, or stomach aches, it's for things that will kill you if you don't get treatment.
In short, I believe that the Democrats should leave the medical system alone, and if they want to take on a cause, they can take on the trail lawyers, who are the real reason why medicine is so expensive.
Let's face it, the government doesn't have a good track record with taking care of private information. Because of that, I don't want them to have control over my medical care, or my medical information.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Czar's, Czar's, Czar's.
According to my research, there are 31 Czars in the United States Government. As best as I can tell, these people didn't have to undergo any congressional interrogation before being appointed to their positions of power.
If we go strictly by the constitution, any cabinet level position must be confirmed by the senate, and if these Czar's haven't been confirmed by the senate, then they are above the law, and the Senate has no oversight into their activities.
Take for instance, Obama's new Healthcare Czar, who wants everyone to send "fishy" emails and letter to the white house, so they will know who is dissenting against the Universal Healthcare that he wants.
Also, consider his E-Czar, who was a thief, or his pay Czar.
For cryin' out loud, this is the United States of America, not the USSR, we don't need no stinking czar's running around.
If you want people in cabinet level positions, we, the people, get to have our representatives get oversight, and that's the law.
If we go strictly by the constitution, any cabinet level position must be confirmed by the senate, and if these Czar's haven't been confirmed by the senate, then they are above the law, and the Senate has no oversight into their activities.
Take for instance, Obama's new Healthcare Czar, who wants everyone to send "fishy" emails and letter to the white house, so they will know who is dissenting against the Universal Healthcare that he wants.
Also, consider his E-Czar, who was a thief, or his pay Czar.
For cryin' out loud, this is the United States of America, not the USSR, we don't need no stinking czar's running around.
If you want people in cabinet level positions, we, the people, get to have our representatives get oversight, and that's the law.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death
The White House announced early in the week that "Dissenters are spreading misinformation about the Healthcare reforms. If you get a 'fishy' email, forward it to the White House." To me, this smacks a bit of the Evil Empire.
Say what you will about Bush, but never in the last 8 years did he collect people's email addresses, names, and personal information in order to create a database of dissenters. The fact that Obama's healthcare Czar did, is almost a high crime and misdemeanor.
When will congress start to get a handle on this problem and tell the President that he is not the chosen son of Abraham here, and he is not the high pontiff, nor is he god?
To my Texas mind, all these Czar's running around puts me in mind of the KGB, and I don't like it.
Say what you will about Bush, but never in the last 8 years did he collect people's email addresses, names, and personal information in order to create a database of dissenters. The fact that Obama's healthcare Czar did, is almost a high crime and misdemeanor.
When will congress start to get a handle on this problem and tell the President that he is not the chosen son of Abraham here, and he is not the high pontiff, nor is he god?
To my Texas mind, all these Czar's running around puts me in mind of the KGB, and I don't like it.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Science: Are humans to blame for Global Warming?
Is it just bad science that compels astronauts and some fringe scientists to conclude that humanity causes global warming?
Onboard the space station, the canadian astronaut said that "the polar ice caps have melted, and some of the snow is gone." He attributed this to human caused global warming. But, is he just blowing smoke, or do we, as the residents of the planet, have to take some of the blame?
Evidence shows that the Earth is coming out of a global ice age, and sunspot activity is the highest it's ever been, and the volcanos around the Ring of Fire, are pouring billions of tons of Carbon into the air.
Is it folly to imagine that we two legged masters of the Earth can be the cause of the ozone layer depleting, or is it just bad science?
I seem to remember these same scientists as those who were on the Global Freezing bandwagon thirty years ago.
I suppose the next question is, "What do we do about it?" Somehow, I don't think that just taxing a person for driving a car, or breathing, (yes, I can see where this is going,) will fix anything. All it's going to do is a) rake in big bucks for someone to sell pieces of paper with "Carbon Tax Credit" written on it, b) make people feel better about themselves, and c) destroy a vibrant economy that's already reeling on the ground.
If the government was really serious about fixing the problems, they'd mandate that the auto manufacturers have to make cars that run on 80% electricity, 20% something else, or simply say, "You have to make electric cars that travel 800 miles on a charge and can be recharged while moving down the road." If government were really serious about cutting down on smog combustible vehicles, they'd tell BNSF (The railroad through Texas, Oklahoma, etc,) to make some room in it's schedule for passenger trains between the bigger cities. I know I'd ride it between Lubbock, Dallas, Amarillo, etc. I'd rather read a book than drive.
But, the government won't, because they'd rather steal your money and make speeches, than fix the problem.
Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
Onboard the space station, the canadian astronaut said that "the polar ice caps have melted, and some of the snow is gone." He attributed this to human caused global warming. But, is he just blowing smoke, or do we, as the residents of the planet, have to take some of the blame?
Evidence shows that the Earth is coming out of a global ice age, and sunspot activity is the highest it's ever been, and the volcanos around the Ring of Fire, are pouring billions of tons of Carbon into the air.
Is it folly to imagine that we two legged masters of the Earth can be the cause of the ozone layer depleting, or is it just bad science?
I seem to remember these same scientists as those who were on the Global Freezing bandwagon thirty years ago.
I suppose the next question is, "What do we do about it?" Somehow, I don't think that just taxing a person for driving a car, or breathing, (yes, I can see where this is going,) will fix anything. All it's going to do is a) rake in big bucks for someone to sell pieces of paper with "Carbon Tax Credit" written on it, b) make people feel better about themselves, and c) destroy a vibrant economy that's already reeling on the ground.
If the government was really serious about fixing the problems, they'd mandate that the auto manufacturers have to make cars that run on 80% electricity, 20% something else, or simply say, "You have to make electric cars that travel 800 miles on a charge and can be recharged while moving down the road." If government were really serious about cutting down on smog combustible vehicles, they'd tell BNSF (The railroad through Texas, Oklahoma, etc,) to make some room in it's schedule for passenger trains between the bigger cities. I know I'd ride it between Lubbock, Dallas, Amarillo, etc. I'd rather read a book than drive.
But, the government won't, because they'd rather steal your money and make speeches, than fix the problem.
Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Independence Day, 2009
I was out tonight with my family, watching the fireworks and listening to the Lubbock Youth Symphony, and I was reminded why this country exists.
Below you will find the Declaration of Independence from 1776. I would so much love for us to get back to what they wanted us to have. We have forgotten about the founders, who took independence by force and risked losing their lives to do it.
I hope that after reading this, you feel as I do, and thank God that we live in a free country and enjoy the fruits of our labors.
Below you will find the Declaration of Independence from 1776. I would so much love for us to get back to what they wanted us to have. We have forgotten about the founders, who took independence by force and risked losing their lives to do it.
I hope that after reading this, you feel as I do, and thank God that we live in a free country and enjoy the fruits of our labors.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Have I become so jaded that I can only see the wrong?
The other day, after reading my blog, my wife turned to me and asked, "How come all you can do is complain? Why can't you find anything good in what's going on?" To be honest, I had to sit back and think about it. Have I become so jaded that I can only see what's wrong with the first black president is doing?
After some soul searching, I realized that maybe I am jaded, and I might have a reason to be, but that's only because I feel like I'm Paul Revere, and the current administration are the Red Coats marching on Bunker Hill.
To be perfectly honest, I am to the point that I hold all politicians in equal contempt, and want nothing more to do, than smack them in the back of the head, like Gibbs does on NCIS. I want to get their attention and whisper, "Hey, read the constitution. It's not your job to control private businesses, or take care of the non-contributers, or even manage the economy. Your only job is to defend our country, create laws, and then let us enjoy our lives, our liberty, and our pursuits of happiness."
If I could, I'd quietly point out that this is the United States, not midevial Europe, and that Senators and REpresentatives are not members of the aristocracy. After all, that is what our founding fathers fought to free us from. But now, 233 years later, our public servants consider themselves the rulers, and are even talking about leaving their senate and house seats to their children, all the while, trying to take away our abilities to live independant lives and our god given rights to speak out against tyranny.
After some soul searching, I realized that maybe I am jaded, and I might have a reason to be, but that's only because I feel like I'm Paul Revere, and the current administration are the Red Coats marching on Bunker Hill.
To be perfectly honest, I am to the point that I hold all politicians in equal contempt, and want nothing more to do, than smack them in the back of the head, like Gibbs does on NCIS. I want to get their attention and whisper, "Hey, read the constitution. It's not your job to control private businesses, or take care of the non-contributers, or even manage the economy. Your only job is to defend our country, create laws, and then let us enjoy our lives, our liberty, and our pursuits of happiness."
If I could, I'd quietly point out that this is the United States, not midevial Europe, and that Senators and REpresentatives are not members of the aristocracy. After all, that is what our founding fathers fought to free us from. But now, 233 years later, our public servants consider themselves the rulers, and are even talking about leaving their senate and house seats to their children, all the while, trying to take away our abilities to live independant lives and our god given rights to speak out against tyranny.
Franken wins Senate Seat: What's next?
After spending 8 months in court, and spending millions of dollars, Al Franken has finally won his bid for a place in the US Senate. But, what do we have to look forward to?
An unnamed senator was heard to say, "We have 60 democrats now, let's just push our agenda through the senate and ignore what the republicans have to say."
To be totally honest, the democrats only actually have 58 votes on any day, since Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy only show up for major votes.
In my opinion, if the democrats try to push legislation through without giving the republicans any say so, then they are leaving 50% of the american people without a say so, and there could be dire consequences for this country.
I am of the feeling that politics has become more of a "We're going to do it our way," instead of "Let's work together."
So now that the democrats have their 60 votes, are they going to raise taxes on the businesses that make our country so strong? Or will they take a vital healthcare industry and make it no better than a second world system?
Are the liberals so enamoured of collectivism that they have forgotten what our founding fathers fought to bring into being? Namely, a country where a person who works hard, can make money and leave his children more than what he had.
Personally, I'd rather have a 50% balance in the house and senate, just so that they have to work together.
An unnamed senator was heard to say, "We have 60 democrats now, let's just push our agenda through the senate and ignore what the republicans have to say."
To be totally honest, the democrats only actually have 58 votes on any day, since Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy only show up for major votes.
In my opinion, if the democrats try to push legislation through without giving the republicans any say so, then they are leaving 50% of the american people without a say so, and there could be dire consequences for this country.
I am of the feeling that politics has become more of a "We're going to do it our way," instead of "Let's work together."
So now that the democrats have their 60 votes, are they going to raise taxes on the businesses that make our country so strong? Or will they take a vital healthcare industry and make it no better than a second world system?
Are the liberals so enamoured of collectivism that they have forgotten what our founding fathers fought to bring into being? Namely, a country where a person who works hard, can make money and leave his children more than what he had.
Personally, I'd rather have a 50% balance in the house and senate, just so that they have to work together.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
High Crimes and misdemeanors
Last year while Obama was running for president, he co-sponsored a bill that made it harder to fire Inspector Generals without giving them 30 day notices, and submitting their name to congress.
Does it surprise anyone that our anointed president has already broken a law that he, himself helped create? If you said yes, then you must have been asleep for the last six months.
Americorp Inspector Gerald Whalpin, an unpolitical man, tracked down fraud in the Americorp and because the con artist was an Obama supporter, he got a call in the middle of the night, telling him he had an hour to either quit or he would be fired. Can you guess where that phone call came from? If you said 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you're right. He got a call from the office of the president, threatening him, and when he didn't choose to resign, our anointed leader arbitrarily called him senile and said he was confused.
At the very least, this is the breaking of a federal law, and if our president did indeed threaten to fire him, then he should be charged with High Crimes and misdemeanors, and impeached. So far, he's done more illegal things than any other president, other than Nixon.
For 8 years, we had people trying to impeach President Bush because of faulty intelligence, and for going to war with Iraq.
Before that, we had people trying to impeach President Clinton for alleged sex acts in the oval office.
Compared to what has happened to the IG, those were the equivalent of toilet papering someone's house. Neither Bush or Clinton actually broke a law, while this president (If it's true,) has already broken one he himself co-sponsored.
Does it surprise anyone that our anointed president has already broken a law that he, himself helped create? If you said yes, then you must have been asleep for the last six months.
Americorp Inspector Gerald Whalpin, an unpolitical man, tracked down fraud in the Americorp and because the con artist was an Obama supporter, he got a call in the middle of the night, telling him he had an hour to either quit or he would be fired. Can you guess where that phone call came from? If you said 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you're right. He got a call from the office of the president, threatening him, and when he didn't choose to resign, our anointed leader arbitrarily called him senile and said he was confused.
At the very least, this is the breaking of a federal law, and if our president did indeed threaten to fire him, then he should be charged with High Crimes and misdemeanors, and impeached. So far, he's done more illegal things than any other president, other than Nixon.
For 8 years, we had people trying to impeach President Bush because of faulty intelligence, and for going to war with Iraq.
Before that, we had people trying to impeach President Clinton for alleged sex acts in the oval office.
Compared to what has happened to the IG, those were the equivalent of toilet papering someone's house. Neither Bush or Clinton actually broke a law, while this president (If it's true,) has already broken one he himself co-sponsored.
Government healthcare soars to 1trillion over 10 years
I am starting to think that the Democrats and Obama want to deliberately devastate our national economy. The last time I posted, it was chastise the President for trying to create a national healthcare nightmare, and putting a 600 billion price tag on it. Now, they've upped the price to 1 trillion.
Once again, I say this is a bad idea, and for a handful of reasons.
1) Most importantly, it is not the Governments job to take care of it's citizens, or make sure they have healthcare insurance. That is up to each citizen to make sure he and his family is taken care of.
2) The government already has a healthcare insurance program, that the've run into the ground with all the impact of an asteroid strike. It is called medicare. In the last 10 years, they've cut the medicare benifits that hospitals get from 100% to 50%. What's to stop them from the same to this new program?
3) The people that wouldn't be covered by this policy. Would you believe 18-30 year olds, the poor, and most likely those with medical disabilities. 18-30 year olds don't buy insurance, because the spend money on the latest shiny, the poor because they can't afford it, and those with medical problems, because insurance companies won't cover them.
4) Once the government starts offering insurance, it can undersell other agencies, it can enforce state mandates, and can practice unfair practices. Consider insurance for people over 65, there used to be companies that offered policies, but once the government got into the old person's racket, they started offering policies for pennies on the dollar, and other companies couldn't handle that, so they got out.
The federal government can create state mandates, that other companies have to pay for, while the federal government doesn't.
5) The government can't control the budget as it is, and can't control spending, and can't keep costs down.
Between you and me, I consider this another way in which the Federal Government, the Democrats, and some republicans think they can create a dependant state, where our every need will be met by a beaurocracy. I really think this is a bad idea, since everywhere this has been done, Doctors have moved, quit their jobs, and refused to deal with the government. Consider Canada, Britain, and France.
If this is allowed to become dejuer, the federal government will appoint someone who will go over your records, and will say, "I'm sorry that you have cancer (Broken hip, fractured jaw, snapped spine, etc,) Mr. Smith, but it will be six months before you can go to a doctor and get treatment."
Already there is talk to repealing the tax breaks that companies get for buying employees health insurance. Take for instance, your company pays for you a 3000 dollar a year policy. If the government starts taxing that, then your employeer will probably drop you from that program, and say "To hell with it." Does anyone actually think that thier company will give them a 3000 dollar a year raise?
The governments thinking is that your health insurance from work is like a part of your wages, so it can be taxed.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU PEOPLE TO WAKE UP AND SEE THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PUT YOUR BUTT BACK IN SLAVERY?
Everything this government is doing is trampling on our Lives, Liberties, Properties, and Pursuits of Happiness.
If we don't stop them, we'll be vassals to the state, and those in the senate, house, and white house, will own us. If we allow this to happen, we deserve what we get.
As for me and mine, I will not be a slave that belongs to anyone. I am a free person.
Once again, I say this is a bad idea, and for a handful of reasons.
1) Most importantly, it is not the Governments job to take care of it's citizens, or make sure they have healthcare insurance. That is up to each citizen to make sure he and his family is taken care of.
2) The government already has a healthcare insurance program, that the've run into the ground with all the impact of an asteroid strike. It is called medicare. In the last 10 years, they've cut the medicare benifits that hospitals get from 100% to 50%. What's to stop them from the same to this new program?
3) The people that wouldn't be covered by this policy. Would you believe 18-30 year olds, the poor, and most likely those with medical disabilities. 18-30 year olds don't buy insurance, because the spend money on the latest shiny, the poor because they can't afford it, and those with medical problems, because insurance companies won't cover them.
4) Once the government starts offering insurance, it can undersell other agencies, it can enforce state mandates, and can practice unfair practices. Consider insurance for people over 65, there used to be companies that offered policies, but once the government got into the old person's racket, they started offering policies for pennies on the dollar, and other companies couldn't handle that, so they got out.
The federal government can create state mandates, that other companies have to pay for, while the federal government doesn't.
5) The government can't control the budget as it is, and can't control spending, and can't keep costs down.
Between you and me, I consider this another way in which the Federal Government, the Democrats, and some republicans think they can create a dependant state, where our every need will be met by a beaurocracy. I really think this is a bad idea, since everywhere this has been done, Doctors have moved, quit their jobs, and refused to deal with the government. Consider Canada, Britain, and France.
If this is allowed to become dejuer, the federal government will appoint someone who will go over your records, and will say, "I'm sorry that you have cancer (Broken hip, fractured jaw, snapped spine, etc,) Mr. Smith, but it will be six months before you can go to a doctor and get treatment."
Already there is talk to repealing the tax breaks that companies get for buying employees health insurance. Take for instance, your company pays for you a 3000 dollar a year policy. If the government starts taxing that, then your employeer will probably drop you from that program, and say "To hell with it." Does anyone actually think that thier company will give them a 3000 dollar a year raise?
The governments thinking is that your health insurance from work is like a part of your wages, so it can be taxed.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU PEOPLE TO WAKE UP AND SEE THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PUT YOUR BUTT BACK IN SLAVERY?
Everything this government is doing is trampling on our Lives, Liberties, Properties, and Pursuits of Happiness.
If we don't stop them, we'll be vassals to the state, and those in the senate, house, and white house, will own us. If we allow this to happen, we deserve what we get.
As for me and mine, I will not be a slave that belongs to anyone. I am a free person.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
So-Called Healthcare reform is actually, "kill the healthcare" reform
It looks like President Obama, once again, doesn't have the first idea about how the Healthcare system works. In his weekly address, he said he'd found 303billion dollars that would be one part of the 600billion healthcare reform.
Of course, this is coming from a man who has never worked in the medical field, has never visited a public hospital, nor can he obviously balance the federal checkbook. I'm going to take a few things from the article and put them into perspective.
In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.
What this means is 1) He's going to raise the taxes on people making 250 thousand a year. In my opinion, this is stupid, because those people who make 250 thousand, work themselves to the bone to earn that money. Most of the people who earn that kind of cash, donate to charity.
(If you close the loopholes, they may decide not to donate.) Honestly, I think it'd be easier if they dropped the graduated tax nightmare that is our current system and would go to a flat 10-15% sales tax. Just between us, when you tax people for making money, you are punishing them for going after the American Dream, and if you tax them too hard, you'll discourage them from even working.
The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors.
Oh yippee yay, you won't pay the hospitals (ie, the nurses, radiology departments, lab departments,) the medical equipment manufactureres, or outside laboratories, but you will keep paying the doctors. For crying out loud, if you don't pay the hospitals, equipment manufacturers, or labs, then the doctors will have to practice out of their cars, because without the payments to the hospitals, the nurses, lab techs, and xray techs will look for other jobs, and leave the doctors to do everything themselves, and those of us who have worked in hospitals, know that most doctors never show up in the hospitals, and wouldn't know a blood pressure cuff, from a CBC lab test. Nor would they be able to take xrays, or carry out the lab tests themselves. So in effect, you'd be chasing off the people who do the real work.
Over the next decade, $110 billion is slated to come from reducing reimbursements to take account of what Orszag described as the ability of providers to improve their efficiency. “Health care services should be able to achieve and do achieve productivity improvements over time,” he said. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, future increases in such Medicare payments would be reduced based on an assumption that health care providers achieve half the productivity increases seen elsewhere in the economy.
What does he think this is, an automotive manufacturing plant? Of course hospitals will only be able to achieve half the productivity increases, that because nursing is a full time job, and in more severe cases, one nurse can only take care of one patient at a time. The same goes for surgeries, and major trauma. Medicine isn't an assembly line project. The doctor has to see them, order tests, interpret the tests, and make a decision on their condition, before he can say that they will survive or not. A typical motor vehicle accident that arrives at a hospital takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour (per person) before the doctor can clear them from backboards, or send them home. It's not as easy as "can you feel my fingers, okay you can go."
Surgeries are even more labor intensive, and even the easiest one can not be finished in 30 minutes.
For this administration to think that they can fix it like this, just shows that they don't know what they are talking about. Maybe they should have to be a patient in a local county hospital for a day.
I hate to tell you, but in the last 14 years, the average payment from medicare has dropped from 100% to 40% and that makes it harder to hire staff, and keep them employed. People in the medical field, are just like everyone else. They want a stable job, want cost of living increases, and want to chase the American Dream, but when you cut the cost from Medicare/insurance, etc, a full time position gets changed to part time, and they lose money. For some reason, this doesn't work when trying to keep employees.
So, what's going to happen? Will the government only be happy when the illegal immigrants have insurance, at the expense of the rest of us?
I'll readily admit that I'm not a politician, and hence use common sense, but to me it seems that the dwellers of malaria infested DC don't actually care about us. They only care about lining their own pockets and selling our future to our enemies. However, not once has any of them said, "I don't need 110thousand a year, so I'll vote against the automatic pay raise."
Of course, this is coming from a man who has never worked in the medical field, has never visited a public hospital, nor can he obviously balance the federal checkbook. I'm going to take a few things from the article and put them into perspective.
In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.
What this means is 1) He's going to raise the taxes on people making 250 thousand a year. In my opinion, this is stupid, because those people who make 250 thousand, work themselves to the bone to earn that money. Most of the people who earn that kind of cash, donate to charity.
(If you close the loopholes, they may decide not to donate.) Honestly, I think it'd be easier if they dropped the graduated tax nightmare that is our current system and would go to a flat 10-15% sales tax. Just between us, when you tax people for making money, you are punishing them for going after the American Dream, and if you tax them too hard, you'll discourage them from even working.
The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors.
Oh yippee yay, you won't pay the hospitals (ie, the nurses, radiology departments, lab departments,) the medical equipment manufactureres, or outside laboratories, but you will keep paying the doctors. For crying out loud, if you don't pay the hospitals, equipment manufacturers, or labs, then the doctors will have to practice out of their cars, because without the payments to the hospitals, the nurses, lab techs, and xray techs will look for other jobs, and leave the doctors to do everything themselves, and those of us who have worked in hospitals, know that most doctors never show up in the hospitals, and wouldn't know a blood pressure cuff, from a CBC lab test. Nor would they be able to take xrays, or carry out the lab tests themselves. So in effect, you'd be chasing off the people who do the real work.
Over the next decade, $110 billion is slated to come from reducing reimbursements to take account of what Orszag described as the ability of providers to improve their efficiency. “Health care services should be able to achieve and do achieve productivity improvements over time,” he said. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, future increases in such Medicare payments would be reduced based on an assumption that health care providers achieve half the productivity increases seen elsewhere in the economy.
What does he think this is, an automotive manufacturing plant? Of course hospitals will only be able to achieve half the productivity increases, that because nursing is a full time job, and in more severe cases, one nurse can only take care of one patient at a time. The same goes for surgeries, and major trauma. Medicine isn't an assembly line project. The doctor has to see them, order tests, interpret the tests, and make a decision on their condition, before he can say that they will survive or not. A typical motor vehicle accident that arrives at a hospital takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour (per person) before the doctor can clear them from backboards, or send them home. It's not as easy as "can you feel my fingers, okay you can go."
Surgeries are even more labor intensive, and even the easiest one can not be finished in 30 minutes.
For this administration to think that they can fix it like this, just shows that they don't know what they are talking about. Maybe they should have to be a patient in a local county hospital for a day.
I hate to tell you, but in the last 14 years, the average payment from medicare has dropped from 100% to 40% and that makes it harder to hire staff, and keep them employed. People in the medical field, are just like everyone else. They want a stable job, want cost of living increases, and want to chase the American Dream, but when you cut the cost from Medicare/insurance, etc, a full time position gets changed to part time, and they lose money. For some reason, this doesn't work when trying to keep employees.
So, what's going to happen? Will the government only be happy when the illegal immigrants have insurance, at the expense of the rest of us?
I'll readily admit that I'm not a politician, and hence use common sense, but to me it seems that the dwellers of malaria infested DC don't actually care about us. They only care about lining their own pockets and selling our future to our enemies. However, not once has any of them said, "I don't need 110thousand a year, so I'll vote against the automatic pay raise."
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Is our President delusional and seeing through rose tinted glasses
In a speech to Muslims, in Cairo Egypt, the President of the United States gave another one of his eloquent teleprompter speeches, in which he expounded on our faults, but failed to point out the faults of the "Peace loving" Muslim fanatics around the world.
I'm going to take exact quotes and give my opinion on what the truth is:
"This cycle of suspicion and discord must end,"
I actually agree with this, but so far, Muslim fanatics are the one's causing suspicion and discord. When they stop trying to sue people for practicing free speech, I'll consider them as normal folks.
In every instance of an IED in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the muslim fanatic that either sets the bomb, detonates the bomb, or blows himself up for his god.
Muslims in the netherlands have threatened to kill a man for speaking his mind.
In the United States, it's CAIR, the Muslim/american "peace" groups, and fanatics that are trying to sue a news commentator and blogger into giving up his freedom of speech by saying that his blogs and comments "are a theat to their organizations and lives."
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,"
So far, I haven't heard him speak against the Taliban, who are attacking innocent women and children in Pakistan, or those who have launched attacks against the government of pakistan. I haven't heard him speak out against the warlords who force afghani farmers to grow drugs, nor have I heard him speak out against the egyptian that killed his two teenage daughters in Dallas (just because they wanted to date American boys.) To this date, I have yet to hear him speak out against the muslim men in the phillipines who have killed christian girls on their way home from school, nor have I heard him speak out against honor killings wherever they may happen.
"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist,"
In this, he is right, but doesn't go far enough in saying that Hamas and the PLO are the ones that fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent people.
Nor does he call them what they are, Terrorists who can't accept that Israel has given up land on three occassions or that they move into that land and shoot rockets into Israel.
"The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people,"
He doesn't mention here that the Palestinian authority won't lift a hand to arrest terrorists, nor apologize for the fanatics that kill innocent people. He doesn't mention that the PA sends money to terrorists and supplies them with weapons.
In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."
Like a typical liberal, he considers our country to be a colonial power, without ever realizing that we have not once stayed and set up a government in a foreign country that's been run from washington. We have intervened in Europe and Japan (during World War II) Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and once we were done, we never forced them to accept our type of government.
While at the same time, Muslims move to other countries and expect the people already living there to accept islam as their religion, and try to enforce laws against freedom of speech, press, and religion.
Consider the following:
American Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan can't have public baptisms, can't carry Bibles, and can't display the emblems of their faith; all because it might offend muslims.
Muslims living in America and Europe try to force the governments of those lands to accept islam as the predominant religion, and work to curtial the free expression of speech, press, and religion. And when they don't get what they won't, they start riots, and burn cars. There are even some places in Europe where the law enforcement can't go, because those are "muslim only" enclaves.
Personally, I say that until Muslims start behaving like civilized people, and monitoring and speaking against the fanatics, I will always treat them with distrust and suspicion.
Let us not forget that so far Muslims have done the following: Blown up the Marine Barracks in Libya, Blown up the USS Cole, Blown up multiple US and European embassies, Blown up the World Trade Center (in 1993 and 2001), blown up a night club in Bali, Cut off the heads of journalists and christians, and have persecuted all other religions in the name of Allah.
So far, it appears that that all the destruction is being done by the "peace loving" muslims.
I'm going to take exact quotes and give my opinion on what the truth is:
"This cycle of suspicion and discord must end,"
I actually agree with this, but so far, Muslim fanatics are the one's causing suspicion and discord. When they stop trying to sue people for practicing free speech, I'll consider them as normal folks.
In every instance of an IED in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the muslim fanatic that either sets the bomb, detonates the bomb, or blows himself up for his god.
Muslims in the netherlands have threatened to kill a man for speaking his mind.
In the United States, it's CAIR, the Muslim/american "peace" groups, and fanatics that are trying to sue a news commentator and blogger into giving up his freedom of speech by saying that his blogs and comments "are a theat to their organizations and lives."
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,"
So far, I haven't heard him speak against the Taliban, who are attacking innocent women and children in Pakistan, or those who have launched attacks against the government of pakistan. I haven't heard him speak out against the warlords who force afghani farmers to grow drugs, nor have I heard him speak out against the egyptian that killed his two teenage daughters in Dallas (just because they wanted to date American boys.) To this date, I have yet to hear him speak out against the muslim men in the phillipines who have killed christian girls on their way home from school, nor have I heard him speak out against honor killings wherever they may happen.
"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist,"
In this, he is right, but doesn't go far enough in saying that Hamas and the PLO are the ones that fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent people.
Nor does he call them what they are, Terrorists who can't accept that Israel has given up land on three occassions or that they move into that land and shoot rockets into Israel.
"The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people,"
He doesn't mention here that the Palestinian authority won't lift a hand to arrest terrorists, nor apologize for the fanatics that kill innocent people. He doesn't mention that the PA sends money to terrorists and supplies them with weapons.
In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."
Like a typical liberal, he considers our country to be a colonial power, without ever realizing that we have not once stayed and set up a government in a foreign country that's been run from washington. We have intervened in Europe and Japan (during World War II) Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and once we were done, we never forced them to accept our type of government.
While at the same time, Muslims move to other countries and expect the people already living there to accept islam as their religion, and try to enforce laws against freedom of speech, press, and religion.
Consider the following:
American Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan can't have public baptisms, can't carry Bibles, and can't display the emblems of their faith; all because it might offend muslims.
Muslims living in America and Europe try to force the governments of those lands to accept islam as the predominant religion, and work to curtial the free expression of speech, press, and religion. And when they don't get what they won't, they start riots, and burn cars. There are even some places in Europe where the law enforcement can't go, because those are "muslim only" enclaves.
Personally, I say that until Muslims start behaving like civilized people, and monitoring and speaking against the fanatics, I will always treat them with distrust and suspicion.
Let us not forget that so far Muslims have done the following: Blown up the Marine Barracks in Libya, Blown up the USS Cole, Blown up multiple US and European embassies, Blown up the World Trade Center (in 1993 and 2001), blown up a night club in Bali, Cut off the heads of journalists and christians, and have persecuted all other religions in the name of Allah.
So far, it appears that that all the destruction is being done by the "peace loving" muslims.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Nightmares
.....Normally, I don't have nightmares, but for the last two weeks, I've had two. Both have been on Tuesday morning, at around 6:25 or so. I don't usually put my personal life on the web, but since I don't know if anyone even reads this, then this is more like a journal than anything else.
......The one I had last week started out in a school building, and I was either a student or I was a School teacher, and during the dream, I came across this empty swimming pool on the third floor of the building. (I know, pools aren't usually built anywhere but on the ground floor, but.....) There were a lot of kids using this pool for a skateboard park, and there was no way out of the pool, to the lower floors. At this point, one of the kids told me that there were ways out, but I'd have to find the doorway and crawl through a tunnel to get to the lower floors. After finding and kicking the door open, I proceeded to crawl through this very tight tunnel, on my way down to the lower floors. I imagine I had gotten about halfway through it when the building started to collapse and I got trapped in this small tight place. (Of course, it was about that time, that I woke up.)
.....The one I had this morning was just as strange. I was asleep in my bed, with my dogs curled up between me and my wife, and it was just like reality, until I suddenly felt teeth biting into my leg. I put my hand down and smacked the offending dog in the head, only to have the other one bite my hand. After puling my hand back, I tried to roll away, only to fall into the floor beside the bed. It was then that they both lunged for my throat. (And of course, that was when I woke up, with my heart in my throat.)
Could these be predictions, or am I very scared of something that I can't control. Why am I remembering these dreams, and why are they happening on Tuesday Mornings?
......The one I had last week started out in a school building, and I was either a student or I was a School teacher, and during the dream, I came across this empty swimming pool on the third floor of the building. (I know, pools aren't usually built anywhere but on the ground floor, but.....) There were a lot of kids using this pool for a skateboard park, and there was no way out of the pool, to the lower floors. At this point, one of the kids told me that there were ways out, but I'd have to find the doorway and crawl through a tunnel to get to the lower floors. After finding and kicking the door open, I proceeded to crawl through this very tight tunnel, on my way down to the lower floors. I imagine I had gotten about halfway through it when the building started to collapse and I got trapped in this small tight place. (Of course, it was about that time, that I woke up.)
.....The one I had this morning was just as strange. I was asleep in my bed, with my dogs curled up between me and my wife, and it was just like reality, until I suddenly felt teeth biting into my leg. I put my hand down and smacked the offending dog in the head, only to have the other one bite my hand. After puling my hand back, I tried to roll away, only to fall into the floor beside the bed. It was then that they both lunged for my throat. (And of course, that was when I woke up, with my heart in my throat.)
Could these be predictions, or am I very scared of something that I can't control. Why am I remembering these dreams, and why are they happening on Tuesday Mornings?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Fact: Democrat Senate and White House favor Illegal Aliens over Citizens
While Checking my Email this morning, I came across an Email from NumbersUSA, which is a group that keeps track of illegal immigrants and what the government does about it.
In this email, the owner, Roy Beck let us onto the fact that E-Verify (A government program to make sure that only legal citizens get hired by American Companies) got stripped from the Obama Economic Stimulus Package. Thanks to our elected officials bowing down to the US Department of Commerce, Illegal Immigrants can now get a part of this "great for America" package (Please note the extreme sarcasm here.)
I want to know why our elected officials keep kowtowing to groups that are not a part of the Federal Government. I'll give you a few examples: The Federal Reserve Bank, the US Department of Commerce. These groups are not, nor have they ever been part of the Federal Government. If you don't believe me, read your consititution and history of the United States.
The Federal Reserve Bank, despite it's name, is a private bank, which means that the government has no control over it, yet they still gave it 800billion dollars, with no strings attached, and no way to control it.
The US Department of Commerce, also, is not a Federal Agency, rather it claims to be working for small independant businesses. Yet, it would rather hire cheaper workers than qualified citizens.
When will we wake up and see that our country is slowly fading away, and will soon be no better off than the European Union? We are a sovereign nation, with our own rights, yet at every turn, the Obama administration is selling our rights to people who swim across the big river.
Hiring illegal immigrants at this time (Remember, we are almost in a depression,) is akin to cutting your own throat. If Citizens can't find jobs to replace the one's lost, then it's no wonder that we all feel like we are unrepresented.
In this email, the owner, Roy Beck let us onto the fact that E-Verify (A government program to make sure that only legal citizens get hired by American Companies) got stripped from the Obama Economic Stimulus Package. Thanks to our elected officials bowing down to the US Department of Commerce, Illegal Immigrants can now get a part of this "great for America" package (Please note the extreme sarcasm here.)
I want to know why our elected officials keep kowtowing to groups that are not a part of the Federal Government. I'll give you a few examples: The Federal Reserve Bank, the US Department of Commerce. These groups are not, nor have they ever been part of the Federal Government. If you don't believe me, read your consititution and history of the United States.
The Federal Reserve Bank, despite it's name, is a private bank, which means that the government has no control over it, yet they still gave it 800billion dollars, with no strings attached, and no way to control it.
The US Department of Commerce, also, is not a Federal Agency, rather it claims to be working for small independant businesses. Yet, it would rather hire cheaper workers than qualified citizens.
When will we wake up and see that our country is slowly fading away, and will soon be no better off than the European Union? We are a sovereign nation, with our own rights, yet at every turn, the Obama administration is selling our rights to people who swim across the big river.
Hiring illegal immigrants at this time (Remember, we are almost in a depression,) is akin to cutting your own throat. If Citizens can't find jobs to replace the one's lost, then it's no wonder that we all feel like we are unrepresented.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Rumor: Democrats want to make it possible for states to increase the welfare roles while still getting the incentive payements
Overheard on the radio this morning: "The Democrat controlled congress, with the aid of the treacherous three have slipped the following provision into the Obama Bailout package: States may increase the welfare rolls, while at the same time lying about discussing retraining with welfare receipients, in order to maintain the federal incentive payments that states get for each person who goes off of the welfare rolls."
It brings to mind the old joke of, "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
It never ceases to amaze me, that the country of "Don't tread on me," has become the country of "I want the government to be my babysitter." Am I the only person that sees the welfare system as the new slavery? Or am I the only person who has studied history enough to know that when you get too dependant upon other people taking care of you, that you lose the ability to think for yourself?
The fourteenth amendment, section one, states, "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It could just be me, but when you take money from anyone, for anything that's not a hard days wage, that makes you a slave to them. It's doubdly so when the very people who pay you are the ones you vote for.
I guess, once again, my question is: "Why would anyone let the idiots in washington tell them what to do?"
I suppose that if your freedom is for sale, then I hope you get your bucks worth. But as for me and mine, We'll remain free and tell the dipsnots in washington to go fly a kite.
It brings to mind the old joke of, "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
It never ceases to amaze me, that the country of "Don't tread on me," has become the country of "I want the government to be my babysitter." Am I the only person that sees the welfare system as the new slavery? Or am I the only person who has studied history enough to know that when you get too dependant upon other people taking care of you, that you lose the ability to think for yourself?
The fourteenth amendment, section one, states, "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It could just be me, but when you take money from anyone, for anything that's not a hard days wage, that makes you a slave to them. It's doubdly so when the very people who pay you are the ones you vote for.
I guess, once again, my question is: "Why would anyone let the idiots in washington tell them what to do?"
I suppose that if your freedom is for sale, then I hope you get your bucks worth. But as for me and mine, We'll remain free and tell the dipsnots in washington to go fly a kite.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rumor: They want to disarm us.
I've heard yet another rumor. This one goes something like, "They are trying to take away our guns by taxing ammunition so high that you can't afford it."
If this rumor is true, this is the left's way of trying to take away our second amendment rights. The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now you might ask what constitutes a militia, and I'll be happy to tell you what it is, at least according to the founding fathers.
In the days before the United States Armed forces, each state was responsible for setting up it's own state militia, and these militia's were made up of farmers, ranchers, and townspeople, who kept their own rifles and pistols over the doors of the house.
You have to realize that in the days before the United states, King George ruled the colonies and his army was the strongest army in the world, and the colonists didn't even have the right to defend themselves from that army.
The first militia's were those set up in the thirteen colonies, and those were the ones that pushed the British out of the newly founded country.
My take on what constitutes a modern militia may be different from some peoples. A modern militia should be armed with nothing more than shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. Personally, I don't think you or I should own a machine gun and keep it in our house, because after all, you don't exactly need one for hunting ducks or deer.
What do I think we should do, if the government comes after us? Then, I think we can take our pistols and rifles and defend our houses. In Texas, if anyone tries to break into my house, I can shoot him and then call the Law Enforcement Officers. It's called the castle law. After they've entered my house, I can, of course, take and keep their weapon, once it comes back from the police station.
Now, if the military were stupid enough to listen to the Government and attack American Citizens, then they'd be killed in the fire and we'd be justified to take their weapons and use them in defense of our freedom.
Of course, the Armed forces are forbidden to attack American Citizens, and can't even lift a gun to shoot illegal immigrants crossing the borders. Not only would be attacking American Citizens be violating the Constitution, it would be violating our civil rights. In that case, we'd have no choice but to go to the source of the problem and put people with common sense in charge again.
American Soldiers do have to keep in mind, that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution and follow the lawful orders of the officers that are above them in the chain of command. That only includes the military officers and the President, but not any single congressman or senator.
What would I do if they tried to take my Constitutional rights away? I'd fight for my rights, with every fiber of my being.
If this rumor is true, this is the left's way of trying to take away our second amendment rights. The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now you might ask what constitutes a militia, and I'll be happy to tell you what it is, at least according to the founding fathers.
In the days before the United States Armed forces, each state was responsible for setting up it's own state militia, and these militia's were made up of farmers, ranchers, and townspeople, who kept their own rifles and pistols over the doors of the house.
You have to realize that in the days before the United states, King George ruled the colonies and his army was the strongest army in the world, and the colonists didn't even have the right to defend themselves from that army.
The first militia's were those set up in the thirteen colonies, and those were the ones that pushed the British out of the newly founded country.
My take on what constitutes a modern militia may be different from some peoples. A modern militia should be armed with nothing more than shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. Personally, I don't think you or I should own a machine gun and keep it in our house, because after all, you don't exactly need one for hunting ducks or deer.
What do I think we should do, if the government comes after us? Then, I think we can take our pistols and rifles and defend our houses. In Texas, if anyone tries to break into my house, I can shoot him and then call the Law Enforcement Officers. It's called the castle law. After they've entered my house, I can, of course, take and keep their weapon, once it comes back from the police station.
Now, if the military were stupid enough to listen to the Government and attack American Citizens, then they'd be killed in the fire and we'd be justified to take their weapons and use them in defense of our freedom.
Of course, the Armed forces are forbidden to attack American Citizens, and can't even lift a gun to shoot illegal immigrants crossing the borders. Not only would be attacking American Citizens be violating the Constitution, it would be violating our civil rights. In that case, we'd have no choice but to go to the source of the problem and put people with common sense in charge again.
American Soldiers do have to keep in mind, that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution and follow the lawful orders of the officers that are above them in the chain of command. That only includes the military officers and the President, but not any single congressman or senator.
What would I do if they tried to take my Constitutional rights away? I'd fight for my rights, with every fiber of my being.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Rumor: Congress and Obama to shut down conservative Talk Radio
I have heard this rumor that the new administration might be trying to get enough votes together to stifle the conservative voices on talk radio. The way of doing this is the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
"What is the fairness doctrine?" you ask. Quiet simply, it is a set of rules by which you have to balance out your reporting. Take for instance a radio talk host who speaks out against what he or she perceives to be unfair practices by the government. The fairness doctrine forces him to have an alternative viewpoint as well, or he can't broadcast his views. Further case in point, the hypothetical host calls a democrat (For instance: Geitner, the new secretary of the Treasury,) a thief and a moron. Under the fairness doctrine, the host has to have either Geitner or another democrat on, for balance of course, and if nobody will come on and discuss the accusation, or defend the person, then the host can not discuss this.
A second rumor has it that employees of the Federal Communication Commission have already threatened to walk out if the fairness doctrine is passed, since in their opinion, it will stifle free speech.
If these rumors are true, then our beloved federal government will be in violation of the first amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What this means is that the government can not ever point at a sovereign citizen of the United States of America and say, "You have to shut up, or you'll go jail."
If this rumor turns out to be true, the FCC, with President Obama at the helm will in direct violation of the constitution. If they do indeed start stripping away the rights of individuals to speak freely, then where could they conceivably stop? Would your home be taken away? Could you be put in jail for speaking out against what you consider to be wrong?
In my opinion, this all started when the political correctness was mandated by some person who didn't want to get his feelings hurt, and will stop, (thought I hope not,) with the only people who can speak free, being those who kiss the government's butt.
"What is the fairness doctrine?" you ask. Quiet simply, it is a set of rules by which you have to balance out your reporting. Take for instance a radio talk host who speaks out against what he or she perceives to be unfair practices by the government. The fairness doctrine forces him to have an alternative viewpoint as well, or he can't broadcast his views. Further case in point, the hypothetical host calls a democrat (For instance: Geitner, the new secretary of the Treasury,) a thief and a moron. Under the fairness doctrine, the host has to have either Geitner or another democrat on, for balance of course, and if nobody will come on and discuss the accusation, or defend the person, then the host can not discuss this.
A second rumor has it that employees of the Federal Communication Commission have already threatened to walk out if the fairness doctrine is passed, since in their opinion, it will stifle free speech.
If these rumors are true, then our beloved federal government will be in violation of the first amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What this means is that the government can not ever point at a sovereign citizen of the United States of America and say, "You have to shut up, or you'll go jail."
If this rumor turns out to be true, the FCC, with President Obama at the helm will in direct violation of the constitution. If they do indeed start stripping away the rights of individuals to speak freely, then where could they conceivably stop? Would your home be taken away? Could you be put in jail for speaking out against what you consider to be wrong?
In my opinion, this all started when the political correctness was mandated by some person who didn't want to get his feelings hurt, and will stop, (thought I hope not,) with the only people who can speak free, being those who kiss the government's butt.
The Government thinks it can stimulate the economy, but....
Every since the last quarter of 2008, the big guys have been saying that we are in a recession, and heading into a depression.
It started with the failure of people to pay their mortgages, which some of them should not have had at all.
This can be traced back to President Clinton and the department of housing and urban development, and the chairman of that department, who talked the mortgage companies into giving loans to people who couldn't even pay their credit card bills on time.
Once those subprime loans failed, then those companies started screaming that they migh fail and go out of business.
In their infinite wisdom (notice the heavy sarcasm,) the guys who claim to be smarter than we are (More sarcasm) voted to give 800 million dollars to the Federal Reserve bank to buy the bad loans and free up the credit lines again.
Instead of doing that, the Fed started buying up stock options for the failing banks, and have gone even further in buying stocks in other banks, such as Wells Fargo, Captial One, etc.
Now, in the first quarter of the year 2009, the smart people in washington have just voted to give another 900 million to yet more people to "Stimulate" the economy, but from what I have seen and heard, there is not enough actual infrastructure money set aside to keep us out of a depression. Instead, some of this money is being given to ACORN (The community action group that Obama elected,) the beginning of universal healthcare (Which will kill the medical service in this country,) and has increased the SCHIP program to people who make 80k a year.
In my opinion, this won't stimulate the economy, rather this will bring us down into depression.
If I were asked how to stimulate the economy, I would say.
1) Stop collecting Social security, FICA, and Medicare taxes for two years, which would put more money into people's pockets.
2) Close the borders for five years and keep american jobs for american citizens.
3) Stop giving out free medical care to people who aren't citizens.
In my opinion, if we don't stop these people in Washington from selling us away, we'll end up in slavery to Washington.
It started with the failure of people to pay their mortgages, which some of them should not have had at all.
This can be traced back to President Clinton and the department of housing and urban development, and the chairman of that department, who talked the mortgage companies into giving loans to people who couldn't even pay their credit card bills on time.
Once those subprime loans failed, then those companies started screaming that they migh fail and go out of business.
In their infinite wisdom (notice the heavy sarcasm,) the guys who claim to be smarter than we are (More sarcasm) voted to give 800 million dollars to the Federal Reserve bank to buy the bad loans and free up the credit lines again.
Instead of doing that, the Fed started buying up stock options for the failing banks, and have gone even further in buying stocks in other banks, such as Wells Fargo, Captial One, etc.
Now, in the first quarter of the year 2009, the smart people in washington have just voted to give another 900 million to yet more people to "Stimulate" the economy, but from what I have seen and heard, there is not enough actual infrastructure money set aside to keep us out of a depression. Instead, some of this money is being given to ACORN (The community action group that Obama elected,) the beginning of universal healthcare (Which will kill the medical service in this country,) and has increased the SCHIP program to people who make 80k a year.
In my opinion, this won't stimulate the economy, rather this will bring us down into depression.
If I were asked how to stimulate the economy, I would say.
1) Stop collecting Social security, FICA, and Medicare taxes for two years, which would put more money into people's pockets.
2) Close the borders for five years and keep american jobs for american citizens.
3) Stop giving out free medical care to people who aren't citizens.
In my opinion, if we don't stop these people in Washington from selling us away, we'll end up in slavery to Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)