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.

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.

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.

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.