Thursday, November 26, 2009
As a country we now spend more than the amount of money realized in revenue by our poorly formed tax system. How does that translate to main street America? On main street we have a word for it; bankrupt. This country has been, and still is, in a depression. Why a depression? Depressions typically begin with a bubble in the securities and commodities sector and involves several rapid hitting recessions affecting every sector of the economy. That happened in the late twenties and thirties. FDR had a response similar to the response today, allow government spending to get America out. The result was that the great depression lasted far longer than it would have if sound economic policies of controlled spending and sound tax reform had been implemented. America did not exit the great depression until the war industry ramped up during World War II when there was controlled government spending and sound tax reform in order to spur our industrial base. During a depression the last thing a sound economic plan calls for is adding to national debt. That has a prolonging effect.
How can we have meaningful health care reform without government control? It involves a staggered approach.
1) Remove the anti-trust exemption of health insurance companies
I would like to point out to every member of congress that complains about the big health insurance companies that they allowed their power and uncontrolled growth by making them exempt from anti-trust laws allowing the monopoly of territorial markets. Lifting those restrictions would force companies to trim down and cut expenses because the consumer would have more choices and could fire their company if performance fell below their standards.
2) Government Provided Catastrophic Care Insurance
This is the least used health insurance, the cheapest, and yet the largest expense on the books of most insurance companies. This would be a reasonable expense for the federal government because it would not add a significant amount to the size of the federal budget. Taking this expense off the insurance companies books would cut the cost of a typical insurance policy by 40%
3) Tort Reform
End needless lawsuits. It is time to be realistic. If a loved one dies and their earning potential for a lifetime is $1,000,000.00, their death is not worth $10,000,000.00. Much of the cost of doctor's visits and health care cost from providers is the cost of liability insurance coverage. As with anything in the economy, those cost are passed to the consumer.
4) Tax Exemption for Health Care
Eliminate all taxes paid in the health care industry. Again, the health care industry does not pay their taxes, those cost are passed on to the consumer, the largest being the federal government. Can you see the irony, the government is paying the taxes that they levy. That is a shell game that must stop.
5) Re-Writing the Tax Code
Eliminate the income tax and institute a fair tax based on consumption that promotes savings and allows all Americans to pay their fair share based on what they consume. This will double the revenue to the federal government, and the fair tax calls for a prebate monthly for every American to cover the cost of essential services (i.e. utilities, etc). Even with the prebate factored in the revenue to the government almost doubles. This puts more money in the pockets of Americans to afford insurance and spur economic growth to produce jobs.
6) Health Savings Accounts for All Americans
All with reforming the tax code take a portion of the economic surplus and provide $1,000.00 per year for each American in a free health savings account to cover non-covered expenses, and allowing unused amounts to roll over to the next year and be an addition to the yearly contribution. A family of five for instance would have a $5,000.00 yearly savings
These are sound ideas that would completely restructure, not only health care, but revenue collection and it would make health care affordable for every one without adding to the national debt. The restructured tax code would be a buffer against economic recession. These are the sound, common sense conservative principles that should be being put forth by so called conservative leaders instead of the game of politics as usual that has neutered the effectiveness of every area of our government.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The new House health care bill is now in the neighborhood of 1990 pages. The most important question for Nancy Pelosi and the house Democrats is how big must this beast be in order to be big enough. The projected cost of this bill is $894 billion dollars over the past ten years. The red tape and bureaucracy of past bill is still here. One might wonder to whom members of the house were listening to during the heated town hall meetings this past summer. The true danger of this bill is the same as in the past, the need to raise taxes in order to pay for this bill as it kills competition that controls cost in an open market place.
In the end many house members will again vote on a bill that they do not read because of the sheer size of the bill. Hidden in the fine print are the true evils of a bill that will eventually turn the American medical system from one of the premier systems in the world to a sub par system that takes the control of medical care away from doctors and individuals and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats. One can only hope there are enough representatives in congress that will vote against this monster and send it where it really deserves to be, in the trash can.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Republicans, Stand Up and be Proud of Your Record on Race.
After the war, it was the Republican Party that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution over Democratic opposition. Republicans also enacted a series of civil-rights laws that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which basically did what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, as well as a number of other civil-rights measures enacted by Republicans to protect the freed slaves. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the court gave constitutional cover to segregation, effectively prohibiting federal efforts to tackle racial inequality until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. And any federal civil-rights laws left on the books were repealed by Democrats once they got control of Congress and the White House in 1893.
Nevertheless, Republicans continued to make strenuous efforts to aid African-Americans. In 1890, they passed a force bill in the House of Representatives to send federal troops into the South to protect the voting rights of African-Americans. These rights were being violated everywhere in that region by laws, practices and violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups allied with the Democratic Party.
In 1900 (under President McKinley) and again in 1922 (under Harding), Republicans tried to enact an antilynching law. Coolidge asked for legislation again in his 1923 State of the Union message. Unfortunately, Southern Democrats in the Senate routinely filibustered every Republican effort to aid African-Americans.
Even Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't challenge the Senate's Southern caucus. Despite a landslide re-election victory in 1936, including overwhelming majorities in every Southern state, he refused to lend any support to another antilynching bill. Nor would he end the segregation of the armed forces established by Democrat Woodrow Wilson during World War I.
While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower's success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.
Lyndon Johnson consistently opposed civil-rights legislation while he was in Congress, but as president worked hard to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed without the strong support of congressional Republicans, who provided the margin of victory.
Richard Nixon is said to have developed a "Southern strategy" of using racial code words like "law and order" to gain votes in the South. Yet he did more to desegregate southern schools than any president in history. Nixon also created affirmative action to help break the power of racist labor unions, and minority set-asides for government contracts to aid black entrepreneurs.
Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
There were a hundred things that Obama could have done Thursday beside knocking back a cold one with Gates and Crowley. Things like working on real ideas to help the economy and real ideas to work on health care, but Obama has no real ideas. That led him to go back into the Democrat playbook, like he has done with every failed policy he has proposed, and pull an oldie but goody from the pages. When in doubt, stir up a hornets nest by fanning the race issue debate even in an incident that has nothing to do with race. The arrest of Gates was the gift that was laid at the feet of Obama and the media used it to cover the fact that the President is losing the debate on health care.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing.Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure. They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
Nancy Pelosi has never been known for her intelligence or her willingness to tell the truth. Her attack on insurance companies is just a ploy to take the attention of the people away from the real problem, which is a health care reform bill being pushed through Congress that the American people do not want. The American people do not trust Washington to run a government health care plan. If the government handles health care the way that it has the "cash for clunkers" program they have a reason to be nervous. Lets face it, if the government can't run a used car lot, how can they run a hospital.
The fact that Nancy Pelosi can stand before the American people and accuse anyone of unethical behavior is the height of hypocrisy. Again, here is another Democrat attacking an American business that provides jobs to citizens and adds to our economy. The medical insurance industry is not perfect, but this is due in part to having to work within the tightening hands of government regulation. And that is the issue. Pelosi and the Democrats do not care about providing insurance coverage to all Americans, they care about the power that universal health care gives them over our lives. That is immoral.
If the Democrats really wanted a real health care plan that would protect Americans against the cost of health care they would present a universal catastrophic care plan. That would protect Americans against the expense of hospital bills and we would in turn be responsible for our general health care coverage. Insurance cost would go down because the insurance companies would not have huge pay-outs to cover hospital expenses and the cost to the government would only be a fraction of the behemoth bill being endorsed by Democratic leadership.
Nancy please, do us all a favor. When you see a pet project blowing up in your face because you are trying to pull something over the American people, don't blame insurance companies, oil companies, or whoever you are targeting this week. Be honest and tell us that you want your way no matter what we think. Better yet step away from the microphone and, as Tyler Perry's Mabel "Madea" Simmons character would say, "put the shut to the up".
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
I grew up during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Unlike now, when I was growing up there was no cable TV in our home, so when the President spoke, we really had no choice but to hear because he was on all three channels. When I heard President Reagan, the vision of America that he so proudly communicated spoke to me. It would have been easy for that little boy who grew up in poverty in rural South Carolina to become trapped in a poverty cycle, but the great things that President Reagan communicated would not allow that. Reagan was not only a great communicator, be he communicated greatness. His vision of the shining city on a hill filled me with desire to experience what that city had to offer. His words inspired me to be one of the lights in that great city.
My son does not have the benefit of hearing a President communicate that vision of greatness because we don't have that kind of President. We have a President that seems determined to make America pay for the wrongs that he feels her responsible for. Barack Obama is not capable of the greater vision that, when shared by great men like Reagan, inspires men and women to fall love with the ideals of America, to become bigger than themselves and bigger than their surrounding by seeking greatness in all that they do. Barack Obama does not inspire pride and accomplishment. In fact he has shown that he has a propensity to steer people away from these things.
When I have conversations with my young son, I try to pass on to him the same feelings about this country that Ronald Reagan instilled in me. On this page you will find the Reagan farewell address. Listen to it. Be inspired by the words of the great communicator that still ring as true as they ever have. Fathers, have those conversations with your sons that instill the greatness of America in their character. There will never be another "Great Communicator", but there can always be those who communicate greatness.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
When a business is faced with a tax hike or an increase in wages it is paid one of two ways, neither of which is buy the business itself. The cost are either embedded into the cost of goods and services which, in turn, raises the price of things we use or purchase or businesses learn to operate with less staff which causes job losses. The idea that businesses in America, the majority of which are small businesses, just absorb the cost of these things is not realistic.
Because Congress did not delay this increase in the height of this recession, job losses will not doubt increase and the depth of these losses will be prolonged. Those Americans that this wage increase was designed to help will be closer to poverty than ever. There is another way to raise wages in this country.
Real wages will increase when business is given an environment to invest and create without the smothering hand of a burdensome tax system that penalizes the very things that create wealth, spur investment, and raise wages. A real prescription for the healing of our ailing economy is to reign in taxes, reign in an intrusive government, and to reign in the out of control agenda of Democrats and to restore an environment where achievement and production are rewarded. Only then will real wages rise in a sustained growth that has a real impact on ordinary Americans.
"But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."
The President's comments attacking the Cambridge police department are the height of stupidity. President Obama is well accustomed to throwing the race card into a debate. He did it skillfully in his Presidential election campaign while placing the blame on his opponents. First Obama himself said that he was not aware of all the facts surrounding the case. Here is what Obama does know. He knows that he is in the middle of a debate on health care that he is losing and he threw the Cambridge police under the bus to cause a distraction from that debate. When will this stupidity stop. I heard a news commentator say during the presidential campaigns that Barack Obama was comparable to Ronald Reagan in that he was a great communicator. I disagree. Barack Obama may be a great speech reader, but he does not communicate great things. That is why the greatness of Reagan as a President endures. Reagan communicated bold visions and great dreams for America and raised the idea of greatness in the American people. Obama communicates low ambition and mediocrity to the American people. Reagan's America was one where the citizens achieved greatness and accomplished great things. Obama's America is one where the people underachieve and sit dependent on an over sized government like panhandlers on the side of the road. Reagan's America was growing and thriving. Obama's America is faded and withering under the burden of a socialist agenda that is restricting growth.
It is time for the stupidity to stop and that begins when the President goes back in the White House, closes the door, sits down, and SHUTS HIS IGNORANT MOUTH!!!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
- I believe in the Constitution.
- I believe that everyone, no matter what their ethnic or religious background, has the ability to achieve and that America provides the greatest opportunity to achieve of any nation in history.
- I believe the individual is responsible for the consequences and rewards of their own actions and decisions.
- I believe that the United States, based on the writings of our founding fathers and their ideas and vision of this republic, was created as a fundamentally Christian nation without respect to a particular sect or denomination of an established Christian movement. In other words the ideals of America ,as found in our founding documents, had their basis in Christian thought held common by all various institutions of Christian belief.
- I believe that all people, without regard to racial or religious backgrounds, are guarantied the rights and liberties as established in the Constitution and it is the responsibility of our government to uphold these rights for everyone.
- I believe that people, when presented the opportunity to succeed without encumbrances from outside forces that benefit from oppression, have a desire to achieve and are capable of greatness
- I believe the the framers of the Constitution set forth a set of positive liberties and the Constitution promotes those liberties as a means of obstruction to limit the powers of an invasive government.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Americans view of the way Obama is performing his role as President
30% strongly approve
38% strongly disapprove
Believe the stimulus package has helped the economy
Approval among likely voters
Obama is still popular with the most liberal side of the Democratic party, but the American people are not there. Recent polls show that Americans still to lean conservative in their political views. The weariness in the Obama policy is beginning to reflect in congressional races. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who has been re-elected by large margins in the past, has only a 4% lead over her challanger, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
40% consider themselves conservative
35% consider themselves Moderate
21% consider themselves Liberal.
Second, I could care less about the ABA ranking as the ABA has been very inconsistent over the years in who they give their highest ranking to.
Third, I realize that Sotomayor will be confirmed, but I doubt if it will be by 75. I still contend that this is a nomination that should be fought simply because of Sotomayor's legal aptitude.
On her record, of the decisions that have been reviewed by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, her record is as follows:
Overturned - 8
Upheld with Bias by the court (which means that they disagreed with her statutory reasoning) - 2
66% of her reviewed cases have been overturned. That does give her one of the higest overturn rates of any sitting judge. Of the four that were upheld, two held at fault her judicial reasoning behind the decision. Is that the type of Justice we need on the bench?
The cases are listed below. I stand by my post, these are my facts.
Sotomayor will be confirmed. Ge over it. She is replacing a center left justice who is retiring so the change on the court is a wash. All the GOP is trying to do is activate their base.
If one of the conservative justices retires in the next 3.5 years, a real fight will s art because it will threaten the 5-4 conservative majority. You post is 'much ado about nothing.'
July 21, 2009 4:53 PM
You are absolutely wrong. She is replacing a an almost far left justice who had the distinction of being appointed by a center right Republican President. The responsibilities of the Supreme Court and how they affect our Constitutional liberties is much ado about everything. This Justice is far to the left of who she will replace, and her incompetence as judge is reflected in the fact that she is one of the most overturned judges on the federal bench. I wonder if she, the "Constitutional law professor" who has appointed her, or any other Democrat in Washington has even bothered reading the Constitution.
July 21, 2009 6:50 PM
Check Intrade. Sixty five per cent of Intraders expect her to get 75 votes. You are misinformed about Sotomayor's judicial record. She has been overturned by the Supremes less than her peers.
She also got the ABA highest rating. Where do you get your information--Rush? He isn't a journalist and doesn't have a degree.
BTW the term 'conservative majority is a misnomer. You are the minority.
July 22, 2009 5:09 AM
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009 (OVER Turned)
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted*
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
•* Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a *trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)
• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)
• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
1. Increased government spending on socialist programs
2. Increased taxes to cover those programs
3. No fiscal discipline in the state legislature.
4. Unfriendly business environment with unreasonable climate control legislation.
5. Business leaving the state because of tax burden
Does this sound familiar? Barack Obama's Socialist Agenda has the federal government on the California track for disaster, and the engineer does not have his hand on the break. The outrageous spending he has planned for a health care plan that no one wants, climate control legislation that no one needs, and government power grabs that voters last November were too blind to see. Change we can believe in? No, this was change that anyone with half a brain could see coming. There is nothing new here. This is tried and true democratic politics and socialist manipulation.
California (with the Democrats kicking and screaming) has come to a point that they had to confess that their grand socialism does not work. Now they need to go one step farther, cut taxes. John Kennedy, Ronald Regan, and George W. Bush each found that cutting taxes increases revenue and spurs the economy. Here is another fact, at the beginning of every recession in the past seventy five years has happened with a democrat controlled congress, and this is why. Democrats love big government and that is expensive. Democrats also do not have a clue about the nature of economies. Sam Walton had a philosophy, "pile it high, stack them deep, and sell them cheap". There is an economic concept in that statement. Walton cut prices so that he could increase his customer base thus raising revenue. The same works for government. Cut taxes to spur investment creating jobs and increasing revenue.
California has not had a conservative epiphany, but they have moved a few paces down the right track. America's federal representatives must start looking at that same track and start planning their journey. If we continue down the path of Obama, there may not be a lot of America left in four years when this joke has to end.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
This is what I have come to expect from celebrities who decide to enter politics. Here is a note for people who would vote for Alec Baldwin as he looks at a journey into political life. People in Hollywood live in a fantasy world. Their lives revolve around pretending to be something or someone they are not. That is why I laugh when Democrats haul celebrities in to testify at this hearing or that, not because they are an expert on an issue, or even know anything about it, because they played a character that was familiar with the issue. Ordinary America lives in the real world. We understand the issues in Washington from the point of view of people that the things transpiring in Washington really affect, not from some ridiculous philosophy inspired from not being in touch with reality. America, stop putting our future in the hands of people who have no basis in common sense reality. Tell the want to be celebrity politicians, if they can not show some good old fashioned common sense, not to quit their day job.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in
First, let us examine the Constitution from the premise that words mean something. To put it another way, each word that we use has a definition. The definition of a word is not implied, it is what it is. That being said, this is what the first amendment to the Constitution says.
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.
There have been many rulings by the Supreme Court regarding the government and it role, or lack of a role, in regards to religion. The overwhelming consensus in most of the decisions has pull government and religion away from each other. First, almost all of the church/state cases that end up at the Supreme Court do not concern just religion, they concern the Christian religion. Second, the Constitution does not prevent the government, its leaders, or institution from endorsing a religion or from openly acknowledging God. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Let’s examine these definitions.
Endorse - to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate>
Establish - to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate> to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
These are two different words with two different definitions. The first amendment says that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What does that mean? It means that the government can not pass a law that would establish a government religion or state church. When the government puts engravings on its currency a pledge is recited that references God there is no establishment of religion. The Christian religion is several thousand years old. One can not establish what is already in existence. The Constitution does not say that the government can not endorse religion. Our founding fathers time and time again tied the establishment of this republic and its founding principles to the religious principles that they held so dear. Separate the republic from their faith, in fact they wrapped the republic with the tremendous regard that they had for their faith and used their Christian principles in establishing this country. Most of our founding documents refer to God and the personal writings of our founding fathers confirm their beliefs that this was to be a Christian nation. Our judges need to read the Constitution and the writings of these great men whose signatures reside on that document. If our judges would read the Constitution with the understanding that the framers chose their words carefully so that this would remain a free nation with an open and embracing attitude toward the Christian faith on which it was established.
He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you. My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change.
Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed." And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed.
And "The One" said "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats."
And the people said "Sock it to them!"
"And redistribute their wealth."
And the people said, "Show us the money!"
And then He said, "Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."
And Joe the plumber asked, "Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats?" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized.
One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!
Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical terrorists?"
And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are, and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes."
And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay any taxes."
So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah!! Show us the money!"
Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your capital gains when you sell your homes!"
And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed.
And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics."
And the people said, "Give me some of that!"
Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas."
And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!"
And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates."
So "The One" said, "Not to worry...if your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with Acorn and your troubles are over!"
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bilingual signs and guaranteed housing..."
And the people said, "Hallelujah!!" And they made him King!
And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.
Then "The One" said, "I am the "The One" - The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!"
But our foreign trading partners said unto Him, "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..."
And the people said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!"
And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?"
But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon "The One" and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.
And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.
You may think this is a fairy tale, but it's not.
It's happening RIGHT NOW!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
During a hearing on the levees in New Orleans Sen. Boxer threw one of her infamous childlike tirades when Brigadier General Michael Walsh, in a sign of military respect, continually called her ‘Ma’am.
My first question to Sen. Boxer is this, “Who do you think you are, you arrogant and pompous cow, to dare talk down to an honored member of the United States military?” This is just one in a long line of childish outburst that demonstrates the ignorance of this woman. California, it is time to send Boxer home where she belongs; a “boxer rebellion” if you will. It appears that former Hewlett –Packard CEO Carly Fiorina may be running for the Republican nomination for the Senate. California, Fiorina is a bright hardworking woman who actually has accomplishments in her life. Compare that to Boxer who is just a loud mouth politician with no accomplishments in the real world and a bad attitude. The sad fact is this California, Boxer is still popular there as 51% of the people approve of the job that she is doing. Unfortunately, she is as intellectually bankrupt as the state is financially bankrupt. Wake up California; it is time to rebel against stupidly and arrogance. It is time to send Boxer home.
Monday, July 13, 2009
In a carefully and deviously crafted amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski to the health care reform bill, Planned Parenthood and its 295 clinics that perform abortions are included in the bill's definition of community health services. This classification gives Planned Parenthood a foothold in poorer communities that, in many large cities, are predominantly minority communities. This could begin the next Planned Parenthood war on black
The liberal agenda has had devastating consequences in the black community. Democrats have tried to trap entire segments of the black community into a cycle of dependency that is, at the very core, racist and has destroyed many black families. As a result we see a majority of mothers raising children with no father in the home, looking instead to token leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and organizations like the NAACP that have a vested interest in this oppression. Right at the center of this liberal agenda is the abortion issue.
Regardless of the position on abortion that one takes a study of the history of
Planned Parenthood was formed by Margaret Sanger (originally known as the American Birth Control League). Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics which had as is primary tenet the prevention of reproduction by people who had genetic defects and undesirable traits. In other words, a follower of negative eugenics philosophy would make mandatory the sterilization of anyone who had a history in their family of birth defects. As for the term undesirable traits; that term is so broad that it could include anyone based on ideology, physical build, or skin color.
In 1939 Sanger began the Negro Project. Sanger employed black religious leaders with socially left views to promote the idea of sterilization in the black community. Her true motive was made clear in this statement from a letter to Clarence Gamble.
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Is this liberal philosophy dead? On July 2nd Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told New York Times reporter Emily Bazelon this.
“at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this of Sanger after receiving Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision… when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
Senator Barbara Boxer of
The war on the black American family continues and it is time that conservatives stand up and declare no, liberals will not be allowed to destroy the black community, Hispanic community, or any other community in
Friday, July 10, 2009
We must learn from the example of Franklin Roosevelt. The left says that FDR did not go far enough with his huge government spending plans during the depression. A reasonable analysis of those years reveals that he in fact went too far and it delayed growth and prolonged the depression. In fact, had it not been for the economic boom created by World War II, the great depression might have lingered for another fifteen or twenty years.
Government spending does not promote an environment for investment and productivity. The addition of massive amounts of debt robs the economy of the growth created by personal investment.
There are proven methods that will cause the economy to begin a period of growth.
1. Cut the capital gains rate to 10% for everyone. This will spur capital investment by businesses and personal investment giving banks a supply of cash that will not require the printing of money by the Federal Reserve.
2. Offer tax immunity allowing every American business that has money sheltered in off shore accounts to bring that money back to America tax free if it is used to spur investment and create jobs.
3. Replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax, preferably the fair tax. If the math is explained and people can look past democratic fear mongering, the fair tax is a fantastic idea. Imagine this; you want to buy a recliner that cost $300.00. Under our current tax system $100.00 dollars of that recliner is embedded taxes. If the tax code is replaced the cost of that recliner becomes $200.00. If you add a 25% sales tax, the cost becomes $250.00. Under the fair tax the cost of the recliner goes down $50.00 and you are allowed to keep your entire pay check. The resulting stimulus to the economy would be 1,000% more effective than the current
4. Cut government spending.
5. Cut the corporate tax rate to 10%.
These are real solutions that will work for America and create business and jobs.
The Democratic mantra on these plans sounds like this, corporate welfare, corporate giveaway, and the like. Let me explain to the democrats what corporations are responsible for.
1. Creating jobs.
2. Creating Wealth
Obama and his followers talk of corporations as if they were the coming anti-christ. In fact here is what corporations are. They are companies that produce goods and services and HIRE PEOPLE. In other words they are where we work. When liberals attack corporations they attack our jobs and people are put out of work. As liberals attack the big oil companies with their left wing agenda, which one of the thousands of jobs that will be lost does anyone think will not affect the unemployment rates. The people who work at the "big corporations" are our neighbors, our friends, our mothers,our fathers, and more than likely ourselves. The next time democrats and the President attack "big corporations" recite the attack over and over in your head, but replace the word corporation with your company name. Who he just attacked was you and the job that he is targeting could be yours. Now get mad and fight back.
It is time to for the voice of common sense to be heard America.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Rasmusen Polls today shows the picture of a Country that is beginning to wake-up to the realization that President Obama and the Democratic Party are wrong for
Perceptions of Obama
Taxes will go down
Gov't spending will go up
Obama on economy - Ex/Good
Obama on nat'l security - Ex/good
Leadership - Ex/good
Views Society as fair
| || |
Troops Home - End of 1st term.
Obama on energy - ex/good
Supreme Ct choices too liberal
More ethical than most politicians
Trust Obama on Economic Chrisis
Trust on issues
Is Obama still Popular? Overall yes, but as more and more people watch government move in to invade more areas of our live through the Obama backed health care plans and the cap and trade bill (which looks like it came from the Madoff ponzi scheme playbook), America is beginning to wake up. It is time for conservatives, both Democrat and Republican, to stand up and caucus together to fight this liberal agenda. Stop believing the lies of the Democratic controlled media that conservatism is dead. It is very much alive, and these poll results prove it. Even in an election where
Did Pennsylvania Senator Arleen Spector switch parties because the Republican Conservative message as presented could not get him elected in north-eastern states? No!!! He switched because he is a liberal and it was time to reveal his true leanings. To that end I say good riddance. This message needs to be relayed to other senators like
I am an ordinary citizen and I speak for ordinary citizens. Raise yourselves out of slumber Congress, and take notice that