It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.
And that's saying something.
Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."
His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.
Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.
Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------
It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.
But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.
Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.
Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...
As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.
By its own edict...
In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.
This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.
And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).
From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).
This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.
Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?
Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.
They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.
Make no mistake about it....
It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...
And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...
Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.
I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...
And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.
You can't have it both ways...
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Arizonans Losers Again
This is a banner week for the U.S. Supreme Court.
First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.
With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.
Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.
Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.
The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.
Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.
And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.
Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.
As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.
I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.
The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.
Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).
It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.
The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.
SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.
Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.
So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?
What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.
And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?
What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.
I mean, people are commerce, are they not?
Foreign or domestic.
And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?
As far as the Constitutional questions...
I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.
So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?
Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?
This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?
Americans...or foreigners?
Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.
Simply a nationality
First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.
With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.
Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.
Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.
The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.
Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.
And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.
Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.
As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.
I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.
The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.
Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).
It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.
The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.
SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.
Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.
So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?
What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.
And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?
What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.
I mean, people are commerce, are they not?
Foreign or domestic.
And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?
As far as the Constitutional questions...
I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.
So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?
Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?
This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?
Americans...or foreigners?
Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.
Simply a nationality
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Mr. Obama's Dream Isn't Dreamy to Mainstream Americans
In the last few days it has been apparent that this is an election year, and the political landscape is getting more and more slippery by the minute.
The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.
The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.
Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.
It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.
The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.
As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.
As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.
I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.
After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.
It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.
When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).
During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.
Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.
I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.
On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.
And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.
I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.
Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.
The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.
I looked it over.
The first page astounded me.
While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.
My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.
All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.
But in the end it really didn't matter.
Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.
I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.
My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.
I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.
I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.
I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.
With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.
At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.
I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.
How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?
Dream on, Mr. Obama.
The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.
The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.
Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.
It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.
The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.
As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.
As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.
I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.
After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.
It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.
When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).
During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.
Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.
I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.
On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.
And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.
I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.
Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.
The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.
I looked it over.
The first page astounded me.
While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.
My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.
All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.
But in the end it really didn't matter.
Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.
I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.
My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.
I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.
I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.
I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.
With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.
At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.
I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.
How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?
Dream on, Mr. Obama.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Gas Gouging Election Year Market Manipulation?
It has been so very interesting to listen to the mainstream news media commentaries on the horrendous increases which have occurred in the prices Americans are now forced to pay at the pump in order to get to work, run to the doctors, or take a much needed and overdue vacation.
Many of the pundits have offered up such half baked rationalizations it has been incredible, especially in the last few weeks.
A few short months ago, gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon at most stations off the interstate exits.
Less than thirty years ago, it was still at a little over a $1.00 a gallon, having made a 100% increase from ten years before.
There is no logical explanation at this point to why Americans are paying through the nose to power their automobiles.
Except greed.
Both corporate and governmental...
Even Obama's excuses seemed rather flimsy during his recent speech at the Daimler plant.
How much war related gasoline is being consumed by the government keeping all those Humvees, drones, jets, and ships in foreign ports equipped which Americans are paying for both at the pump, and through their other taxes and this mammoth ever-escalating deficit?
The higher the gas prices go, of course, the higher those state and local gasoline taxes also go.
This added tax is not tax deductible at this point even. In other words, those sales and use taxes are not deducted from the amount of discretionary income most Americans get to, say, pay the mortgage.
This is an election year, and all those election coffers need to be stuffed, after all, by most of those oil companies and their lobbyists, too.
No matter that you no longer have any income to pay for that unregulated utility bill, or that house that is now going into foreclosure.
The monster must be fed.
And fed.
Many of the pundits have offered up such half baked rationalizations it has been incredible, especially in the last few weeks.
A few short months ago, gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon at most stations off the interstate exits.
Less than thirty years ago, it was still at a little over a $1.00 a gallon, having made a 100% increase from ten years before.
There is no logical explanation at this point to why Americans are paying through the nose to power their automobiles.
Except greed.
Both corporate and governmental...
Even Obama's excuses seemed rather flimsy during his recent speech at the Daimler plant.
How much war related gasoline is being consumed by the government keeping all those Humvees, drones, jets, and ships in foreign ports equipped which Americans are paying for both at the pump, and through their other taxes and this mammoth ever-escalating deficit?
The higher the gas prices go, of course, the higher those state and local gasoline taxes also go.
This added tax is not tax deductible at this point even. In other words, those sales and use taxes are not deducted from the amount of discretionary income most Americans get to, say, pay the mortgage.
This is an election year, and all those election coffers need to be stuffed, after all, by most of those oil companies and their lobbyists, too.
No matter that you no longer have any income to pay for that unregulated utility bill, or that house that is now going into foreclosure.
The monster must be fed.
And fed.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
2012 Run for the Political Roses
Although not a mainstream television watcher since pay television was mandated by Congressional decree throughout America, I have unfortunately been recently residing with relatives that unfortunately have become rather homebound in their declining years, and on and off been subject to some of the political entertainment shows carried on pay TV. Unfortunately also, it has affected somewhat my elderly relatives grasp of reality since this really is there primary contact with the real world.
Of course, those shows and all those crime dramas and unreal "reality" shows that are fed to the American public as a steady diet.
There have been so many debates at this point by the Republicans it seems there should have been a new reality series scheduled by the networks entitled "The Presidential GOP Debates: Run for the Roses," limiting them to 13 weeks. My eyes glazed over after the first one.
I spent my time during the second one imagining alternative occupations for those "candidates" after they leave office, if they ever do before retirement age. Few, I'm sure, will but here's what I came up with...
Mitt Romney - Used car salesman or croupier in Vegas
Newt Gingrich - Pilsbury doughboy stand-in or the new face on Monopoly for Mr. Moneybags, the banker. (Or Hallmark Card writer).
Rick Perry - Howdy Doody's new partner or calf roper and bull rider.
Michelle Bachman - New face for Oil of Olay or Cruise Line Director
Ron Paul - He's already an obstetrician and that fits, or Santa Claus (with padding)
As far as the other political party, we all know what Mr. Obama's true calling is: Motivational speaker or union organizer. I think most Americans know by now he is not nor was a Constitutional lawyer.
While all these people are traversing the country, spouting their political ideology, I wonder...just how did our political system get so very, very profitable for the cable entertainment news networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) and those candidates?
I mean, just how many staff members and assorted individuals affiliated with these continous elections can now list on their job resume "political strategist?"
I mean, do they give degrees in that now too?
Our elections are becoming mirror images of last week's finale of Survivor.
He who wins the game, wins the coveted rose.
Come hook or crook.
Of course, those shows and all those crime dramas and unreal "reality" shows that are fed to the American public as a steady diet.
There have been so many debates at this point by the Republicans it seems there should have been a new reality series scheduled by the networks entitled "The Presidential GOP Debates: Run for the Roses," limiting them to 13 weeks. My eyes glazed over after the first one.
I spent my time during the second one imagining alternative occupations for those "candidates" after they leave office, if they ever do before retirement age. Few, I'm sure, will but here's what I came up with...
Mitt Romney - Used car salesman or croupier in Vegas
Newt Gingrich - Pilsbury doughboy stand-in or the new face on Monopoly for Mr. Moneybags, the banker. (Or Hallmark Card writer).
Rick Perry - Howdy Doody's new partner or calf roper and bull rider.
Michelle Bachman - New face for Oil of Olay or Cruise Line Director
Ron Paul - He's already an obstetrician and that fits, or Santa Claus (with padding)
As far as the other political party, we all know what Mr. Obama's true calling is: Motivational speaker or union organizer. I think most Americans know by now he is not nor was a Constitutional lawyer.
While all these people are traversing the country, spouting their political ideology, I wonder...just how did our political system get so very, very profitable for the cable entertainment news networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) and those candidates?
I mean, just how many staff members and assorted individuals affiliated with these continous elections can now list on their job resume "political strategist?"
I mean, do they give degrees in that now too?
Our elections are becoming mirror images of last week's finale of Survivor.
He who wins the game, wins the coveted rose.
Come hook or crook.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Iraq War Over? In Name Only, Perhaps
Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, and especially the left wing Democrats on CNN, MSNBC and even those on that British Conservative station, Fox, the Iraq War is hardly over - nor is its reported "end" the result of Mr. Obama's stated campaign promises (except to promise what Bush had already agreed to before leaving office).
It was reported four short years ago that George Bush, during his last three months in office, quietly met with the "new" Iraqi government and agreed to a massive troop withdrawal beginning in 2010 and winding down by the first two weeks in December, 2011.
Which is exactly what has occurred, as agreed.
Just prior, of course, to the next presidential election in this country.
The mainstream media reported it, however, it appears the politicians in Washington hope and pray that Americans will buy this troop withdrawal as ending the War in the Middle East and crediting Mr. Obama for this massive coup.
Until, of course, there is another tragedy involving the U.S. in Iran, Pakistan, or wherever else the military decides it needs to go to bomb, and then rebuild.
The government contractors, of course, are still in Iraq and probably will be there for quite some time.
With, of course, military personnel still there also in order to not leave Iraq totally without a U.S. presence, and keep those government contractors and their safety as their primary priority now that the war is "over." With the convenient capture also of Osama bin Laden this year too (buried at sea in the Muslim tradition?) This has been quite a year for both Mr. Obama's party, and Mr. Bush's.
The AP also reported today in another article regarding a 662 Billion Appropriations Bill, not carried on the front pages or web alert pages:
"Highlighting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon. The bill also authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department.
Frustrated with delays and cost overruns with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, lawmakers planned to require the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cover the expense of any extra costs on the next batch and future purchases of the aircraft. The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 planes for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but the price could make it the most expensive program in military history — $1 trillion.
The legislation freezes $700 million for Pakistan until the defense secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices."
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5
It really shocked me that included in this article is a provision that in the event an American is involved in some terrorist plot (although it seems Washington's politicos are the greatest terrorists of all), they too can be detained indefinitely, and without bail or bond.
Isn't that fundamentally unconstitutional, since Mr. Obama has also consented to "allow" these type actions, with the exception of any actions instigated by al Qaida or its affiliates, to be heard in the civil courts, rather than military courts. So that terrorism and those individuals defense costs can be "privatized," I guess, against all that foreign oil money from the countries that these individuals really call their home.
I mean I could understand having "open" military trials for those so accused who are not Americans but somehow got a visa and entered from one of the more than 40 countries the Bush Administration afforded free pass visa waivers during his term of office, under those "free trade" agreements using foreigners as commerce now that "commerce" and "people" have been so ill defined progressively.
Not to mention "foreigners" or "foreign enemies."
But affording the civil courts for these trials when our national security was and is so poor that a 9-11 could have even happened here in the first place, knowing just how much ill will there is in that part of the world against America and the West due to our decade upon decade presence there, force feeding our Western ideas of "freedom" - a definition of freedom that those in this country doubt the founding fathers would recognize as the inherent freedoms they were speaking of when our Constitution was ratified.
Many of these Middle Eastern countries, it appears, have little formal military for defense of their country and its people, but rather seems they are instead personal armies for the protection of the various dictators who progressively have ruled many of those countries.
From reading most of the web comments on the reported story of the "end of the War in Iraq," I'm not the only American both skeptical, and also with a longer memory than most of the mainstream media types and politicos give Americans credit for.
I predict that there will be another huge national security incident during Mr. Obama's next term of office (you don't really believe that old Newt, or Mitt, or Ron Paul even will take the coveted presidential prize this election, do you?).
So then we can have a Republican win the next election, and the status quo will then continue simply under a "change of face and party."
Perhaps against all odds by Iran (we are again beating the drums over Iran and its development of nuclear weapons - apparently a gigantic threat to this country even given our massive military might, and all the money we have spent on national defense and toys, and Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980's). Or Pakistan (still a threat to India, apparently, another former British possession).
I guess that is why today, "The End of the War in Iraq Day", there were no parades...
It was reported four short years ago that George Bush, during his last three months in office, quietly met with the "new" Iraqi government and agreed to a massive troop withdrawal beginning in 2010 and winding down by the first two weeks in December, 2011.
Which is exactly what has occurred, as agreed.
Just prior, of course, to the next presidential election in this country.
The mainstream media reported it, however, it appears the politicians in Washington hope and pray that Americans will buy this troop withdrawal as ending the War in the Middle East and crediting Mr. Obama for this massive coup.
Until, of course, there is another tragedy involving the U.S. in Iran, Pakistan, or wherever else the military decides it needs to go to bomb, and then rebuild.
The government contractors, of course, are still in Iraq and probably will be there for quite some time.
With, of course, military personnel still there also in order to not leave Iraq totally without a U.S. presence, and keep those government contractors and their safety as their primary priority now that the war is "over." With the convenient capture also of Osama bin Laden this year too (buried at sea in the Muslim tradition?) This has been quite a year for both Mr. Obama's party, and Mr. Bush's.
The AP also reported today in another article regarding a 662 Billion Appropriations Bill, not carried on the front pages or web alert pages:
"Highlighting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon. The bill also authorizes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department.
Frustrated with delays and cost overruns with the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, lawmakers planned to require the contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cover the expense of any extra costs on the next batch and future purchases of the aircraft. The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 planes for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but the price could make it the most expensive program in military history — $1 trillion.
The legislation freezes $700 million for Pakistan until the defense secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices."
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5
It really shocked me that included in this article is a provision that in the event an American is involved in some terrorist plot (although it seems Washington's politicos are the greatest terrorists of all), they too can be detained indefinitely, and without bail or bond.
Isn't that fundamentally unconstitutional, since Mr. Obama has also consented to "allow" these type actions, with the exception of any actions instigated by al Qaida or its affiliates, to be heard in the civil courts, rather than military courts. So that terrorism and those individuals defense costs can be "privatized," I guess, against all that foreign oil money from the countries that these individuals really call their home.
I mean I could understand having "open" military trials for those so accused who are not Americans but somehow got a visa and entered from one of the more than 40 countries the Bush Administration afforded free pass visa waivers during his term of office, under those "free trade" agreements using foreigners as commerce now that "commerce" and "people" have been so ill defined progressively.
Not to mention "foreigners" or "foreign enemies."
But affording the civil courts for these trials when our national security was and is so poor that a 9-11 could have even happened here in the first place, knowing just how much ill will there is in that part of the world against America and the West due to our decade upon decade presence there, force feeding our Western ideas of "freedom" - a definition of freedom that those in this country doubt the founding fathers would recognize as the inherent freedoms they were speaking of when our Constitution was ratified.
Many of these Middle Eastern countries, it appears, have little formal military for defense of their country and its people, but rather seems they are instead personal armies for the protection of the various dictators who progressively have ruled many of those countries.
From reading most of the web comments on the reported story of the "end of the War in Iraq," I'm not the only American both skeptical, and also with a longer memory than most of the mainstream media types and politicos give Americans credit for.
I predict that there will be another huge national security incident during Mr. Obama's next term of office (you don't really believe that old Newt, or Mitt, or Ron Paul even will take the coveted presidential prize this election, do you?).
So then we can have a Republican win the next election, and the status quo will then continue simply under a "change of face and party."
Perhaps against all odds by Iran (we are again beating the drums over Iran and its development of nuclear weapons - apparently a gigantic threat to this country even given our massive military might, and all the money we have spent on national defense and toys, and Reagan's Star Wars program in the 1980's). Or Pakistan (still a threat to India, apparently, another former British possession).
I guess that is why today, "The End of the War in Iraq Day", there were no parades...
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Washington Taking Direction From Madison Avenue: "Super" Committees?
It appears that Washington must have a Madison Avenue mentality, more than a Constitutional one, with respect to its understanding of our American form of government.
In the wake of the "budget deficit" talks and moves to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, justifiably or not (given that there are no offset credits against that deficit for all the outsourcing, and foreign aid we continue to give foreign governments at the cost of the American public), now we have a Super Committee of legislators whose sole job is to study the problem and come up with a bi-partisan solution.
Rather than letting this old dog simply die its legitimate death.
Super sizing and the Super Bowl appears to be the marketing strategy in order to sell whatever comes out of this committee to the MacDonald's and football crowd.
New York and California are complaining through their state legislators about unfair representation on this committee, noting that due to their larger populations, they should even have more Senators than their Constitutional two.
Not mentioning that perhaps about 1/4 of their population might not even be "legal" Americans, simply tourists or transient workers on visa waivers. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Or maybe part time residents of Arizona, Florida or other SunBelt states, thus only "part time" non-residents residents.
Making the same mistakes and trouble in those states through their vacationer status at this point progressively as they created in their own "home" states.
When the Senators, after all, are merely there to represent the state governments, not the people actually at all since the House of Representatives, by that Constitution, is supposed to be the "people's house" representing ONLY those citizens living in their legislative district.
But, of course, campaign finance laws have also afforded "corporate" out of state special interest groups to totally undermine representation in the House, making the House of Representatives more the House of Misrepresentatives.
I wonder, just whose idea was this? And just where is it Constitutionally permissible?
Super egos, I'm sure, will insure that that information will be kept from the public, in the interests of "national insecurity" maybe?
In the wake of the "budget deficit" talks and moves to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, justifiably or not (given that there are no offset credits against that deficit for all the outsourcing, and foreign aid we continue to give foreign governments at the cost of the American public), now we have a Super Committee of legislators whose sole job is to study the problem and come up with a bi-partisan solution.
Rather than letting this old dog simply die its legitimate death.
Super sizing and the Super Bowl appears to be the marketing strategy in order to sell whatever comes out of this committee to the MacDonald's and football crowd.
New York and California are complaining through their state legislators about unfair representation on this committee, noting that due to their larger populations, they should even have more Senators than their Constitutional two.
Not mentioning that perhaps about 1/4 of their population might not even be "legal" Americans, simply tourists or transient workers on visa waivers. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Or maybe part time residents of Arizona, Florida or other SunBelt states, thus only "part time" non-residents residents.
Making the same mistakes and trouble in those states through their vacationer status at this point progressively as they created in their own "home" states.
When the Senators, after all, are merely there to represent the state governments, not the people actually at all since the House of Representatives, by that Constitution, is supposed to be the "people's house" representing ONLY those citizens living in their legislative district.
But, of course, campaign finance laws have also afforded "corporate" out of state special interest groups to totally undermine representation in the House, making the House of Representatives more the House of Misrepresentatives.
I wonder, just whose idea was this? And just where is it Constitutionally permissible?
Super egos, I'm sure, will insure that that information will be kept from the public, in the interests of "national insecurity" maybe?
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Submission Question: Larger Questions on Bachmann Loom
It has been interesting to this Independent the media attention which has been given over Michelle Bachmann's "surprise" question during the Iowa Republican debate.
I mean, was this question REALLY relevant, and just why does there seem to be such media over analysis which continues almost a week after those debates?
Ms. Bachmann, I'm sure, would be more than happy to move on to some really important matters, and I watched her deflect this question at least a dozen times restating her position and beliefs, and reiterating her candidacy based upon so-called "conservative" positions.
Tonight, I even watched as Fox's "anchor" Laura Ingalls once again analyzed Ms. Bachmann's response supposedly "supporting" it, while bringing in Fox's oft used "foil," Bernie Goldberg to attempt to poke holes in Ms. Bachmann's definition of submission, and "respect."
What is so very funny is that it is rather ludicrous to believe that any candidate that runs for public office, not to mention the presidency, would not be influenced by their spouse at times during critical moments.
I mean, Reagan was. So was Jimmy Carter. Both Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter were very influential over their husbands. As is, I'm sure, Michelle Obama on "policy" decisions and positions when push comes to shove.
So why this focus just because this candidate happens to be a woman?
Family of origin influence also is in the psychological makeup of everyone on this planet, for good or ill.
Her husband will be under the magnifying glass, but really should he be?
I don't think Jimmy Carter's brother's travails and some of his antics actually affected Mr. Carter in any adverse way, even his association with "Billy Beer."
And contrary to Mr. Goldberg's positions, to most Christians respect definitely is part of the definition of submission, meaning that most women marry a man they do admire and respect, and in most domestic decisions are to submit to their husband's opinions and judgment, but political matters are not domestic issues between a husband and wife, and a man is also called to respect and cherish his wife.
Having advised and counseled her to pursue a career choice that she maybe hadn't considered, a wise Christian man would leave her to her greater knowledge and experience outside his own area of expertise.
But Mr. Goldberg just may not have that basic understanding if he is not a Christian, and has taken public issue with even those of his own faith for perhaps his own "political" reasons.
The questions on Ms. Bachmann's positions, to this Independent, are many and much more relevant to her candidacy than her definitions of marriage (an institution, actually, with an over 3,000 year history and in which gays also did exist at the time of the signing of the Constitution, but in which time even marriage between a man and woman was defined in this country according to the "common law," which is unchanging for the most part. You know, those "God given" unalienable rights those founders spoke of, which were not to be interfered with by government).
Questions about her stances on Iran, for example, as indeed a "threat" to the United States.
My question: Does this mean you view Iran as as much of a threat in the same vein as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations and Congresses did Viet Nam? I mean, did we not learn our lesson then about offensive, rather than defensive, wars on foreign soil?
Questions about her stances on Israel, also.
My question: Your bio states that you once lived in a kibbutz in Israel. Would that mean that you would continue to sacrifice the lives of your fellow Christians and Americans for the sake of Israel, when of course Christ came to Earth in order to warn the Israelites that if they did continue in their "legalism," with respect to Old Testament scriptural interpretation, they would eventually lose the Temple and the covenant would be broken?
Rather, would you refuse to involve U.S. troops in any further Middle East wars in order to protect American lives outside any true offensive attack on THIS country by a foreign enemy or army? What about the threat of true "terrorists," economic and/or criminal, even a little closer to home, rather than across two continents?
What about your positions on unrestricted and unlimited immigration, as has increased since the Reagan years, in the interests of "diversity" and our own open borders? What about all the outsourcing that has cost so many Americans their former jobs and livelihoods in order to bulk up the global economy and build up the global profits of foreign citizens and governments at the American people's ultimate expense?
Questions about her stances on taxation, of course, as a former tax lawyer.
What is your position on the 16th Amendment, and the Constitutional provisions and intent for higher taxation for "property" owners (corporate or individual), as opposed to those who are paying those taxes for the land holders and corporations where their tax bites are then passed down to the public? What about states that also have an income tax on top of the federal income tax, what is your position there?
Questions about her claims to be a "tea party" believer, without much of an understanding of just what that tea party was all about, especially with respect to global trade.
Ms. Bachmann, as with Mr. Perry (who apparently has written a book, even) "talk the talk" but don't seem to have much of a record of "walking the walk" with respect to Constitutional positions and just where this country has lost its way and is now under global corporate control, rather than Constitutional government.
I would be interested in hearing answers to THOSE questions.
But I think I already know the answers.
The Constitution is in this election season, and most of those candidates are going to do their damnest, once again during election time, to make you believe they have read it.
Or at least have a fundamental understanding of it.
But after election time, of course, will not submit.
I mean, was this question REALLY relevant, and just why does there seem to be such media over analysis which continues almost a week after those debates?
Ms. Bachmann, I'm sure, would be more than happy to move on to some really important matters, and I watched her deflect this question at least a dozen times restating her position and beliefs, and reiterating her candidacy based upon so-called "conservative" positions.
Tonight, I even watched as Fox's "anchor" Laura Ingalls once again analyzed Ms. Bachmann's response supposedly "supporting" it, while bringing in Fox's oft used "foil," Bernie Goldberg to attempt to poke holes in Ms. Bachmann's definition of submission, and "respect."
What is so very funny is that it is rather ludicrous to believe that any candidate that runs for public office, not to mention the presidency, would not be influenced by their spouse at times during critical moments.
I mean, Reagan was. So was Jimmy Carter. Both Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter were very influential over their husbands. As is, I'm sure, Michelle Obama on "policy" decisions and positions when push comes to shove.
So why this focus just because this candidate happens to be a woman?
Family of origin influence also is in the psychological makeup of everyone on this planet, for good or ill.
Her husband will be under the magnifying glass, but really should he be?
I don't think Jimmy Carter's brother's travails and some of his antics actually affected Mr. Carter in any adverse way, even his association with "Billy Beer."
And contrary to Mr. Goldberg's positions, to most Christians respect definitely is part of the definition of submission, meaning that most women marry a man they do admire and respect, and in most domestic decisions are to submit to their husband's opinions and judgment, but political matters are not domestic issues between a husband and wife, and a man is also called to respect and cherish his wife.
Having advised and counseled her to pursue a career choice that she maybe hadn't considered, a wise Christian man would leave her to her greater knowledge and experience outside his own area of expertise.
But Mr. Goldberg just may not have that basic understanding if he is not a Christian, and has taken public issue with even those of his own faith for perhaps his own "political" reasons.
The questions on Ms. Bachmann's positions, to this Independent, are many and much more relevant to her candidacy than her definitions of marriage (an institution, actually, with an over 3,000 year history and in which gays also did exist at the time of the signing of the Constitution, but in which time even marriage between a man and woman was defined in this country according to the "common law," which is unchanging for the most part. You know, those "God given" unalienable rights those founders spoke of, which were not to be interfered with by government).
Questions about her stances on Iran, for example, as indeed a "threat" to the United States.
My question: Does this mean you view Iran as as much of a threat in the same vein as the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations and Congresses did Viet Nam? I mean, did we not learn our lesson then about offensive, rather than defensive, wars on foreign soil?
Questions about her stances on Israel, also.
My question: Your bio states that you once lived in a kibbutz in Israel. Would that mean that you would continue to sacrifice the lives of your fellow Christians and Americans for the sake of Israel, when of course Christ came to Earth in order to warn the Israelites that if they did continue in their "legalism," with respect to Old Testament scriptural interpretation, they would eventually lose the Temple and the covenant would be broken?
Rather, would you refuse to involve U.S. troops in any further Middle East wars in order to protect American lives outside any true offensive attack on THIS country by a foreign enemy or army? What about the threat of true "terrorists," economic and/or criminal, even a little closer to home, rather than across two continents?
What about your positions on unrestricted and unlimited immigration, as has increased since the Reagan years, in the interests of "diversity" and our own open borders? What about all the outsourcing that has cost so many Americans their former jobs and livelihoods in order to bulk up the global economy and build up the global profits of foreign citizens and governments at the American people's ultimate expense?
Questions about her stances on taxation, of course, as a former tax lawyer.
What is your position on the 16th Amendment, and the Constitutional provisions and intent for higher taxation for "property" owners (corporate or individual), as opposed to those who are paying those taxes for the land holders and corporations where their tax bites are then passed down to the public? What about states that also have an income tax on top of the federal income tax, what is your position there?
Questions about her claims to be a "tea party" believer, without much of an understanding of just what that tea party was all about, especially with respect to global trade.
Ms. Bachmann, as with Mr. Perry (who apparently has written a book, even) "talk the talk" but don't seem to have much of a record of "walking the walk" with respect to Constitutional positions and just where this country has lost its way and is now under global corporate control, rather than Constitutional government.
I would be interested in hearing answers to THOSE questions.
But I think I already know the answers.
The Constitution is in this election season, and most of those candidates are going to do their damnest, once again during election time, to make you believe they have read it.
Or at least have a fundamental understanding of it.
But after election time, of course, will not submit.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
New York's Gay Marriage Move: Politics as Usual
It was reported in the mainstream media that after several attempts to get a gay marriage bill passed in the New York legislature, the special interests have finally succeeded - again, diametrically opposed to the foundation of American government and the Constitution upon which it is based.
Marriage is a private contract, after all, and the government has no business "legalizing" or "sanctioning" any or all personal relationships, until of course they then dissolve for "breach of contract."
Appears there may be many lawyers and businesses representatives on the New York legislature, unaware of their Constitutional breach or aware but "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
How many divorce lawyers also petitioned for this "new" law, since marriage is also, of course, an institution with its roots in not simply the "common law" upon which that Constitution is based, but also over 3,000 years of legal precedent.
Leave it to New York, that bastion of social unrest and their Wall Street and global corporate special interests to once again favor their economic welfare, over the foundational government created by those founders.
Along with those other six states which also have used our courts, and their special interests these past five or six years to forment their unlawful agendas.
Rather than address the unequal treatment under progressive laws which have been given to married couples, over those single individuals, heads of household and single parents, or long term cooperative living arrangements and regulatory agency "rules" such as Social Security which are not covered by powers of attorneys or state laws governing rights of inheritance.
This was a bold move, which I do feel will come back to haunt the gay community several years down the road.
They have now "invited" Big Brother into their domestic partnership, and custodial arrangements. And through those blood tests involved prior to issuing marriage licenses, even their own health records and personal information.
Be careful what you wish for.
Marriage is a private contract, after all, and the government has no business "legalizing" or "sanctioning" any or all personal relationships, until of course they then dissolve for "breach of contract."
Appears there may be many lawyers and businesses representatives on the New York legislature, unaware of their Constitutional breach or aware but "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
How many divorce lawyers also petitioned for this "new" law, since marriage is also, of course, an institution with its roots in not simply the "common law" upon which that Constitution is based, but also over 3,000 years of legal precedent.
Leave it to New York, that bastion of social unrest and their Wall Street and global corporate special interests to once again favor their economic welfare, over the foundational government created by those founders.
Along with those other six states which also have used our courts, and their special interests these past five or six years to forment their unlawful agendas.
Rather than address the unequal treatment under progressive laws which have been given to married couples, over those single individuals, heads of household and single parents, or long term cooperative living arrangements and regulatory agency "rules" such as Social Security which are not covered by powers of attorneys or state laws governing rights of inheritance.
This was a bold move, which I do feel will come back to haunt the gay community several years down the road.
They have now "invited" Big Brother into their domestic partnership, and custodial arrangements. And through those blood tests involved prior to issuing marriage licenses, even their own health records and personal information.
Be careful what you wish for.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Fox's Huckabee Hilarity: Facts vs. Spins
Last night I had a few moments to watch briefly several segments from Fox's newest addition to its "conservative" line up on the evening edition of "Huckabee." It was eye-opening, to say the least, as one who is and has always been an American Conservative.
"Governor" Huckabee was introduced (hasn't he left office?), and began the show with an ad and promotion for Gulf shrimp and wisting the Gulf coast this summer since the cleanup has been completed, and the beaches are open and the shrimp simply mouth-watering.
Interspersed with a few comic moments regarding all the ways you can cook or barbeque shrimp, were promptings to "visit the Gulf" and such.
Then the "political" commentary began.
"Governor" Huckabee then went on to lambast Washington on its providing funding to the tune of over a half million dollars to "study shrimp" and their exercise habits using shrimp confined to a hamster's wheel to see just how that might improve, apparently, the taste and fitness of this seafood. Now, don't get me wrong Washington does and has spent outrageously in those earmarks for ridiculous and frivolous expenditures.
But does any American truly believe that those earmarked sums actually did go to provide for the scientific study of shrimp and their exercise capabilities, or rather their friendly campaign donor and his needs instead under the guise of this "study?"
Later in the show, the "Governor" then ran a segment with an old country singer, Ray Stevens, doing a little ditty that demonstrated just how he and his family could get out of debt using Washington's methods for balancing the budgets and providing for its needs in its "administrative" costs.
One such line when referenced printing whatever what was needed and then went on to call these sums "Obama money" and then referenced all the global corporate bailouts, and stimulus monies which have been provided by merely Obama (Congress actually) for such economic expenditures.
What was left out, however, during all the hilarity and pans to the studio audience laughing their literal butts off was that it was George Bush, and not Obama, that started the "stimulus" and bailout money train.
Does Fox and Mr. Huckabee actually believe that Americans memories are truly that short, or that easily propagandized.
Amazing how these ex-NeoCon Republican "entertainment" and political entities continue to get jobs on Fox such as Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Rove, and the like.
Not American Conservatives in any respect, but simply representatives of Washington and their respective self-interests in the name of "fair and unbalanced" reporting. I mean, I just wonder how their positions would jive with our Constitution since Mr. Huckabee is a hawk or was last election, although a represented "Christian" ex-pastor.
Whose only true contribution to last race was his oft-quoted remark that "Jesus would not run for political office."
Definitely not in 21st century America, or as one of the "New Age" Global Republican branch of the Global Socialist Party.
He wrapped up the show with an interview with three young Americans (less than 35) who had suffered during this economic disaster in the U.S., and lost their businesses, or saw the end clearly coming for their particular small businesses. All turned their personal tragedies and disasters into golden eggs by founding new businesses (and where did they get the funding for them, I wonder, since small business loans are almost non-existent for start ups in this economy?) - and did not hold their hands out, as Governor Mike pointed out, during their loss and new ventures for public "golden egg" assistance.
I wonder if Governor Mike has visited the local unemployment offices, and seen that most all in those centers are over the age of his "buck up" and become productive examples? And it never was disclosed just where their assistance and sums for their new ventures came from, or even their moving costs to start businesses in other states or markets?
Maybe Governor Mike should just stick to his food segments.
Since it does appear those are the only pieces with even a shred of research, or truth rather than just more political spin doctoring.
"Governor" Huckabee was introduced (hasn't he left office?), and began the show with an ad and promotion for Gulf shrimp and wisting the Gulf coast this summer since the cleanup has been completed, and the beaches are open and the shrimp simply mouth-watering.
Interspersed with a few comic moments regarding all the ways you can cook or barbeque shrimp, were promptings to "visit the Gulf" and such.
Then the "political" commentary began.
"Governor" Huckabee then went on to lambast Washington on its providing funding to the tune of over a half million dollars to "study shrimp" and their exercise habits using shrimp confined to a hamster's wheel to see just how that might improve, apparently, the taste and fitness of this seafood. Now, don't get me wrong Washington does and has spent outrageously in those earmarks for ridiculous and frivolous expenditures.
But does any American truly believe that those earmarked sums actually did go to provide for the scientific study of shrimp and their exercise capabilities, or rather their friendly campaign donor and his needs instead under the guise of this "study?"
Later in the show, the "Governor" then ran a segment with an old country singer, Ray Stevens, doing a little ditty that demonstrated just how he and his family could get out of debt using Washington's methods for balancing the budgets and providing for its needs in its "administrative" costs.
One such line when referenced printing whatever what was needed and then went on to call these sums "Obama money" and then referenced all the global corporate bailouts, and stimulus monies which have been provided by merely Obama (Congress actually) for such economic expenditures.
What was left out, however, during all the hilarity and pans to the studio audience laughing their literal butts off was that it was George Bush, and not Obama, that started the "stimulus" and bailout money train.
Does Fox and Mr. Huckabee actually believe that Americans memories are truly that short, or that easily propagandized.
Amazing how these ex-NeoCon Republican "entertainment" and political entities continue to get jobs on Fox such as Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Rove, and the like.
Not American Conservatives in any respect, but simply representatives of Washington and their respective self-interests in the name of "fair and unbalanced" reporting. I mean, I just wonder how their positions would jive with our Constitution since Mr. Huckabee is a hawk or was last election, although a represented "Christian" ex-pastor.
Whose only true contribution to last race was his oft-quoted remark that "Jesus would not run for political office."
Definitely not in 21st century America, or as one of the "New Age" Global Republican branch of the Global Socialist Party.
He wrapped up the show with an interview with three young Americans (less than 35) who had suffered during this economic disaster in the U.S., and lost their businesses, or saw the end clearly coming for their particular small businesses. All turned their personal tragedies and disasters into golden eggs by founding new businesses (and where did they get the funding for them, I wonder, since small business loans are almost non-existent for start ups in this economy?) - and did not hold their hands out, as Governor Mike pointed out, during their loss and new ventures for public "golden egg" assistance.
I wonder if Governor Mike has visited the local unemployment offices, and seen that most all in those centers are over the age of his "buck up" and become productive examples? And it never was disclosed just where their assistance and sums for their new ventures came from, or even their moving costs to start businesses in other states or markets?
Maybe Governor Mike should just stick to his food segments.
Since it does appear those are the only pieces with even a shred of research, or truth rather than just more political spin doctoring.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Washington's Shame, Shame on Bankers Far Too Little, Way Too Late
It was reported in the mainstream media that Washington has "chastized" the banking industry and its foreclosure practices during this recession, calling for an investigation of homeowners who were foreclosed upon in 2009-2010 and purportedly inflicting "heavy fines" on those banking institutions if found to have been using loosey goosey practices with respect to the ongoing foreclosures throughout the country.
With most of the homeowners affected by this recession and boom and bust cycle starting in 2005-06, it does seem this is, once again, far too little and way too late.
And, of course, there has been no investigation initiated in order to address those contracts and loan documents and their unlawful and illegal practices which even lead to what has transpired this past five years.
Some of those bogus loans are still being marketed by many of these institutions to new home buyers and also to the young for their educational costs - many based upon the British LIBOR lending rates and not the U.S. prime at all.
The politicians are hard at work, and it is clear that the 2012 elections are actually their main concern with this recent announcement.
With most of the homeowners affected by this recession and boom and bust cycle starting in 2005-06, it does seem this is, once again, far too little and way too late.
And, of course, there has been no investigation initiated in order to address those contracts and loan documents and their unlawful and illegal practices which even lead to what has transpired this past five years.
Some of those bogus loans are still being marketed by many of these institutions to new home buyers and also to the young for their educational costs - many based upon the British LIBOR lending rates and not the U.S. prime at all.
The politicians are hard at work, and it is clear that the 2012 elections are actually their main concern with this recent announcement.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Washington Drama: Government Shutdown?
It has been widely reported in the mainstream media that both political parties are at an impasse in their attempts to "balance" the U.S. budget and our out of control deficits.
The question is, why is this so?
Left out of all those budget talks and negotiations are the real issues and reasons why there even is this claimed budget crisis, and with the creation of the Federal Reserve illegally after the crash on Wall Street and run on the banks in this country during the "Greater Depression" even how it would be possible given that fiat currency was created in order to avoid such a crisis in the first place.
Interesting facts also have been left out of these "talks," and the political posturing.
Such as the fact that our budget could be easily balanced by simply returning to a more accurate method of reporting.
Here are some facts that just might open the public's eyes to what has really been left out:
1. Offsetting our deficits to China, India and Mexico with the number of jobs which have been created for their citizens, and the amount of goods and services which have been outsourced to them progressively throughout the past several decades.
2. Offsetting our deficits with the wealth that foreigners now possess in U.S. industry, our gold and oil reserves, prime residential and commercial real estate, and even our ports.
3. Offsetting our deficits with the dollars now spent in order to continue progressively to defend and protect the "global good" rather than our country's true defense and self-interests and our out of control military budgets while our own country's back doors and shores are becoming less and less secure also by the day, week and month.
4. Offsetting our deficits with the amount of dollars poured into foreign aid to countries now in better financial position than our own, such as Israel, Great Britain (currency is still over ours), Canada - in fact, the entire European Union and most countries for which we have poured literally trillions over the course of years in foreign aid due to their "lobbyists."
5. Offsetting the amount of monies which are poured into global and foreign based pharmaceutical companies and their products and services, whose wealth is gained by now bypassing cures for various diseases of Americans in favor of instead treating the symptoms in order to support the global economy, while then also pouring more and more dollars into research without using some of the cures which have already been discovered.
So while tuning in and listening to the talking heads who also make their livings by reporting on the latest Washington theatrics and crisis, it does seems more and more Americans are asking one simple question...
Why?
The question is, why is this so?
Left out of all those budget talks and negotiations are the real issues and reasons why there even is this claimed budget crisis, and with the creation of the Federal Reserve illegally after the crash on Wall Street and run on the banks in this country during the "Greater Depression" even how it would be possible given that fiat currency was created in order to avoid such a crisis in the first place.
Interesting facts also have been left out of these "talks," and the political posturing.
Such as the fact that our budget could be easily balanced by simply returning to a more accurate method of reporting.
Here are some facts that just might open the public's eyes to what has really been left out:
1. Offsetting our deficits to China, India and Mexico with the number of jobs which have been created for their citizens, and the amount of goods and services which have been outsourced to them progressively throughout the past several decades.
2. Offsetting our deficits with the wealth that foreigners now possess in U.S. industry, our gold and oil reserves, prime residential and commercial real estate, and even our ports.
3. Offsetting our deficits with the dollars now spent in order to continue progressively to defend and protect the "global good" rather than our country's true defense and self-interests and our out of control military budgets while our own country's back doors and shores are becoming less and less secure also by the day, week and month.
4. Offsetting our deficits with the amount of dollars poured into foreign aid to countries now in better financial position than our own, such as Israel, Great Britain (currency is still over ours), Canada - in fact, the entire European Union and most countries for which we have poured literally trillions over the course of years in foreign aid due to their "lobbyists."
5. Offsetting the amount of monies which are poured into global and foreign based pharmaceutical companies and their products and services, whose wealth is gained by now bypassing cures for various diseases of Americans in favor of instead treating the symptoms in order to support the global economy, while then also pouring more and more dollars into research without using some of the cures which have already been discovered.
So while tuning in and listening to the talking heads who also make their livings by reporting on the latest Washington theatrics and crisis, it does seems more and more Americans are asking one simple question...
Why?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Obama and Calderon Plan Meet and Greet While More Americans Die
It was announced by the White House press corps that Barack Obama plans to meet with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon in the near future with respect to the border situation. A meeting announced and purportedly planned prior to the recent events in both Arizona and Mexico which have once again cost several Arizonans and Americans their lives due to the escalating tensions over the border situation, and another recent death of a U.S. border patrol agent in Mexico this past week.
A death that then also was attributed to guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S., which firearms just so happened to trace back to the State of Texas?
I mean, as a long term Arizona resident it doesn't appear that drug cartel members are "buying" guns from the U.S. but from those smuggled in from South America which are unregistered and thus for the most part untraceable as has been historically the case. Or those they appropriate from the many law enforcement personnel whose lives have also been taken during the escalating violence at the border.
I wonder, at this point in America's history with the decades long and increasing violence, and the number of American lives and property losses which have also increased ten to twenty fold since the mid 1950's in the border area, would the founding fathers still be holding discussions with the government of Mexico over the loss of American lives and property, rather than actually securing our porous southern borders and providing for the common defense of the citizenry as is their primary Constitutional duty and function?
The "discussions" are continuing, and one of the topics is "immigration reform" of those poorer citizens from Mexico who also have had to flee that country due to its poorer economy and also the violence which continues to occur there so that those cartels, and the auto thieves that operate cross borders can continue to market their products on both sides of the border.
A situation which has also fundamentally increased since the Reagan years, when the interstate also from Mexico through the State of Arizona was widened and also the first amnesty was passed thus affording those wealthy profiteers to then apply for American citizenship and thus facilitate also their "commerce" cross borders.
Just what WILL it take for the federal government to actually even begin to do their fundamental job and begin practicing true "human rights" and protecting the lives of the American people, their property, and also the lives of those Mexican nationals who are dying in the desert at the hands of their former countrymen from Mexico who are for the most part those Coyotes charging them thousands of dollars to only leave them in the desert to perish.
A death that then also was attributed to guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S., which firearms just so happened to trace back to the State of Texas?
I mean, as a long term Arizona resident it doesn't appear that drug cartel members are "buying" guns from the U.S. but from those smuggled in from South America which are unregistered and thus for the most part untraceable as has been historically the case. Or those they appropriate from the many law enforcement personnel whose lives have also been taken during the escalating violence at the border.
I wonder, at this point in America's history with the decades long and increasing violence, and the number of American lives and property losses which have also increased ten to twenty fold since the mid 1950's in the border area, would the founding fathers still be holding discussions with the government of Mexico over the loss of American lives and property, rather than actually securing our porous southern borders and providing for the common defense of the citizenry as is their primary Constitutional duty and function?
The "discussions" are continuing, and one of the topics is "immigration reform" of those poorer citizens from Mexico who also have had to flee that country due to its poorer economy and also the violence which continues to occur there so that those cartels, and the auto thieves that operate cross borders can continue to market their products on both sides of the border.
A situation which has also fundamentally increased since the Reagan years, when the interstate also from Mexico through the State of Arizona was widened and also the first amnesty was passed thus affording those wealthy profiteers to then apply for American citizenship and thus facilitate also their "commerce" cross borders.
Just what WILL it take for the federal government to actually even begin to do their fundamental job and begin practicing true "human rights" and protecting the lives of the American people, their property, and also the lives of those Mexican nationals who are dying in the desert at the hands of their former countrymen from Mexico who are for the most part those Coyotes charging them thousands of dollars to only leave them in the desert to perish.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Recession Increasing Crimes
By most reliable statistics post the 1960's even, it does appear that the violent property and personal crime rates throughout most of the U.S. metro cities is on the rise, and ten fold what they were back in the day from this boomer's point of view and personal experiences. Especially in the last five years post my exile from the State of Arizona after the National Guard was called out due to public demand back in 2006 when the housing crisis and mortgage mess was in full swing.
Recently, I had another experience with our out of control rates of criminal activity by the younger generation especially, it appears.
A generation raised on computer and video games, and also expensive calculators and computers for their research and learning in our "New Age" schools which are predominately focused on teaching children how to use these machines, rather than to think, reason or even read. Vocabulary lessons are pretty much gone in favor of the btw and lol shorthand of the computer generation.
I left Arizona, of course, almost five years ago after having experienced the criminal activity in the banking and foreclosure industry there, an industry highly supported by most of the legislature in one manner or another in order to, of course, fund their campaign war chests for their next election runs.
The banking and real estate market is a very lucrative one, and also one in which has progressively taken some rather unethical and immoral turns in the past thirty years since the 1970's in that tourism and retirement state after having foresaken long ago most of its historical industries in cotton, cattle, copper, climate (for the health impaired) and citrus.
I moved to the Midwest first but unfortunately the spring and summer crop seasons and crop dusting and humidity did not agree with this asthmatic.
I then moved to the South where I had family members living to somewhat assist my parents with their increasing difficulties due to their aging and health declines, and was there for one of the hurricanes and then progressively contracted a lung infection which got worse the longer I stayed.
During that time while staying at a nearby hotel after one of my mother's surgeries, I had the first of several automobile thefts, in which they appropriated some of my luggage, a quarter collection, and even a soup bowl I used for my Cup o' Noodles. Louisiana truly is hurting post all the devastation of the past five years in that particular state.
This taken in light of the break-in I had just prior to leaving Arizona when my car was broken into at one of the truck rental establishments near the freeway when I had to rent a truck overnight to move what I had left of my personal property and effects after having sold most of them in order to pay off debts which were "due" concerning my house and what occurred which led to the loss.
In that instance, the perpetrators tried to get a small cheap CD player I had in the car, and broke the panel attempting to remove it, and stole of course most of the few CDs I had in the car along with damaging it, although it is a 16 year old automobile at this point.
Then several weeks ago, another property crime once again.
After having been cited for a traffic violation in another area of the country in which I have attempted to live in order to get as well as can be expected considering my health issues as an asthmatic, I decided one snowy day to walk to a nearby store in order to purchase some cream for my coffee. I have also been politically targeted due to the positions I have taken on many issues facing this country in the border situation, health care and housing mess from a Constitutional perspective, which of course has created enemies in those who hold with their "illegal" views for the benefit of the few, at the cost of the many.
As I was walking past one of those portable lunch wagons along a major city street, a young man of about 25-28 blocked my route, grabbed my purse, and took off across an open field with it. A blur of a dark haired youth in a blue jacket is all I really can remember, it happened so fast.
With it, he got about $10.00 in cash, and all my personal identification for the most part. My social security card, my birth certificate, and even pictures of my children when they were mere babes. Of what I had left, most of what I held dear.
Of course, there are fees and charges involved with replacing even those documents which were stolen. And inside it also was about three years worth of work I had done as a graphic artist and designer on some of the photographs I had begun to edit during the time my health was up and down and during my parents health crisis and hospitalizations these past several years.
I was, of course, outraged and angry.
It wasn't the fact that there are not programs for those that need them in order to eat, as at least those programs have not been cut in food stamps and the civic organizations that provide food for the hungry.
In fact, I have had to avail myself of the services of some of those civic organizations after having lost most everything I owned and unable to work other than at my small art endeavor this past several years, and mostly living in weekly rentals due to the fact that I really do not have all those deposits nor a credit rating that will afford me to "permanently" relocate anywhere - and meet the legal definitions and guidelines for refugee status, although there are no benefits provided for American refugees of the border wars even after the Guard had been called out as my former home state truly and continues to be under invasion from those open and porous southern borders and the crime that has occurred there and increased in leaps and bounds post-Reagan and the widening of that interstate from Nogales to Flagstaff.
I just wonder, if those police had been instead of harassing Americans post the Patriot Act for their own self-serving ends, or facilitating and assisting in the rising costs of insurance in this country which now few can afford at all in most metro areas throughout the country, and instead patrolling neighborhoods as they did in the olden days, would the property and personal crime figures be as high as they are today?
Instead of incarcerating or citing low level DUIs without injury or property damage, seat belt violators, or those who have not at all committed any true measurable crime under the common law in which our Constitution is based?
Some of the laws which are clearly used by those public servants are merely exercises in harassment, rather than addressing the symptoms (such as with the border situation) rather than the problems themselves and curing those.
So for all those "personal responsibility" Republicans, and all those "bleeding heart" Democrats believing in "human" rights rather than the inalienable rights of native born or naturalized Americans, it isn't the victims who are responsible for their circumstances, or their increasing poverty, especially those in the boomer generation.
A country without a conscience, as has occurred progressively post 9-11, is mostly to blame.
And that, once again, is fact.
Recently, I had another experience with our out of control rates of criminal activity by the younger generation especially, it appears.
A generation raised on computer and video games, and also expensive calculators and computers for their research and learning in our "New Age" schools which are predominately focused on teaching children how to use these machines, rather than to think, reason or even read. Vocabulary lessons are pretty much gone in favor of the btw and lol shorthand of the computer generation.
I left Arizona, of course, almost five years ago after having experienced the criminal activity in the banking and foreclosure industry there, an industry highly supported by most of the legislature in one manner or another in order to, of course, fund their campaign war chests for their next election runs.
The banking and real estate market is a very lucrative one, and also one in which has progressively taken some rather unethical and immoral turns in the past thirty years since the 1970's in that tourism and retirement state after having foresaken long ago most of its historical industries in cotton, cattle, copper, climate (for the health impaired) and citrus.
I moved to the Midwest first but unfortunately the spring and summer crop seasons and crop dusting and humidity did not agree with this asthmatic.
I then moved to the South where I had family members living to somewhat assist my parents with their increasing difficulties due to their aging and health declines, and was there for one of the hurricanes and then progressively contracted a lung infection which got worse the longer I stayed.
During that time while staying at a nearby hotel after one of my mother's surgeries, I had the first of several automobile thefts, in which they appropriated some of my luggage, a quarter collection, and even a soup bowl I used for my Cup o' Noodles. Louisiana truly is hurting post all the devastation of the past five years in that particular state.
This taken in light of the break-in I had just prior to leaving Arizona when my car was broken into at one of the truck rental establishments near the freeway when I had to rent a truck overnight to move what I had left of my personal property and effects after having sold most of them in order to pay off debts which were "due" concerning my house and what occurred which led to the loss.
In that instance, the perpetrators tried to get a small cheap CD player I had in the car, and broke the panel attempting to remove it, and stole of course most of the few CDs I had in the car along with damaging it, although it is a 16 year old automobile at this point.
Then several weeks ago, another property crime once again.
After having been cited for a traffic violation in another area of the country in which I have attempted to live in order to get as well as can be expected considering my health issues as an asthmatic, I decided one snowy day to walk to a nearby store in order to purchase some cream for my coffee. I have also been politically targeted due to the positions I have taken on many issues facing this country in the border situation, health care and housing mess from a Constitutional perspective, which of course has created enemies in those who hold with their "illegal" views for the benefit of the few, at the cost of the many.
As I was walking past one of those portable lunch wagons along a major city street, a young man of about 25-28 blocked my route, grabbed my purse, and took off across an open field with it. A blur of a dark haired youth in a blue jacket is all I really can remember, it happened so fast.
With it, he got about $10.00 in cash, and all my personal identification for the most part. My social security card, my birth certificate, and even pictures of my children when they were mere babes. Of what I had left, most of what I held dear.
Of course, there are fees and charges involved with replacing even those documents which were stolen. And inside it also was about three years worth of work I had done as a graphic artist and designer on some of the photographs I had begun to edit during the time my health was up and down and during my parents health crisis and hospitalizations these past several years.
I was, of course, outraged and angry.
It wasn't the fact that there are not programs for those that need them in order to eat, as at least those programs have not been cut in food stamps and the civic organizations that provide food for the hungry.
In fact, I have had to avail myself of the services of some of those civic organizations after having lost most everything I owned and unable to work other than at my small art endeavor this past several years, and mostly living in weekly rentals due to the fact that I really do not have all those deposits nor a credit rating that will afford me to "permanently" relocate anywhere - and meet the legal definitions and guidelines for refugee status, although there are no benefits provided for American refugees of the border wars even after the Guard had been called out as my former home state truly and continues to be under invasion from those open and porous southern borders and the crime that has occurred there and increased in leaps and bounds post-Reagan and the widening of that interstate from Nogales to Flagstaff.
I just wonder, if those police had been instead of harassing Americans post the Patriot Act for their own self-serving ends, or facilitating and assisting in the rising costs of insurance in this country which now few can afford at all in most metro areas throughout the country, and instead patrolling neighborhoods as they did in the olden days, would the property and personal crime figures be as high as they are today?
Instead of incarcerating or citing low level DUIs without injury or property damage, seat belt violators, or those who have not at all committed any true measurable crime under the common law in which our Constitution is based?
Some of the laws which are clearly used by those public servants are merely exercises in harassment, rather than addressing the symptoms (such as with the border situation) rather than the problems themselves and curing those.
So for all those "personal responsibility" Republicans, and all those "bleeding heart" Democrats believing in "human" rights rather than the inalienable rights of native born or naturalized Americans, it isn't the victims who are responsible for their circumstances, or their increasing poverty, especially those in the boomer generation.
A country without a conscience, as has occurred progressively post 9-11, is mostly to blame.
And that, once again, is fact.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Liberal Lunacy: Colt Isn't The Tommy Gun
Contrary to the progressively lunatic "liberal" fringe element, the Arizona State legislature has proposed a bill that will make the single action Colt which harkens back to Arizona's territorial days the "official" state firearm.
To me, the world "liberal" with respect to the second amendment, and also so very many other provisions of the first ten amendments makes that label for the clearly socialist and communist bent a conundrum in terms.
I mean the socialist/communistic media is now even scrutinizing and stalking the house and parents of the man-child accused in the January shooting deaths of six Arizonans and wounding many others who have reportedly taken to isolating themselves in their home also in response to the curiosity seeking press camped on their doorstep, and neighbors who obviously also wish their 15 minutes of fame regardless of the reason.
As a former long term Arizonan, I truly believe the legislature has better things to do in light of also Arizona's progressive decline under the two political party system, and I really had to ALMOST laugh at the outrage over this one.
I mean the Colt is hardly an assault weapon, nor is it akin to Chicago's brutal history and love affair with the Tommy Gun.
What worries me, however, is that this move just might spread and Illinois may move to make the Tommy Gun its official state firearm.
Utah is also on the move to favor the Browning semi-automatic weapon as their gun of choice. One upmanship maybe?
I mean, doesn't the state have much better things to do and needed legislation in so very many areas with respect to the border situation and that open desert in which progressively more people have died there than in all Arizona's history at the hands of a cowboy bearing a Colt?
Another border agent was killed recently from all reports, just another of so very many on both sides of that expanse of desert.
Will wonders never cease?
To me, the world "liberal" with respect to the second amendment, and also so very many other provisions of the first ten amendments makes that label for the clearly socialist and communist bent a conundrum in terms.
I mean the socialist/communistic media is now even scrutinizing and stalking the house and parents of the man-child accused in the January shooting deaths of six Arizonans and wounding many others who have reportedly taken to isolating themselves in their home also in response to the curiosity seeking press camped on their doorstep, and neighbors who obviously also wish their 15 minutes of fame regardless of the reason.
As a former long term Arizonan, I truly believe the legislature has better things to do in light of also Arizona's progressive decline under the two political party system, and I really had to ALMOST laugh at the outrage over this one.
I mean the Colt is hardly an assault weapon, nor is it akin to Chicago's brutal history and love affair with the Tommy Gun.
What worries me, however, is that this move just might spread and Illinois may move to make the Tommy Gun its official state firearm.
Utah is also on the move to favor the Browning semi-automatic weapon as their gun of choice. One upmanship maybe?
I mean, doesn't the state have much better things to do and needed legislation in so very many areas with respect to the border situation and that open desert in which progressively more people have died there than in all Arizona's history at the hands of a cowboy bearing a Colt?
Another border agent was killed recently from all reports, just another of so very many on both sides of that expanse of desert.
Will wonders never cease?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Misaligned Priorities: Organizing Campaigns Rather Than Representation
It was announced in the mainstream media recently that while Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is recovering from the events which occurred in Tucson in early January in which six Americans and Arizonans were attacked during a political forum at an area shopping center,
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) have been hard at work organizing fundraisers and creating a PAC organization in order to raise monies for Ms. Gifford's 2012 re-election campaign.
This tragedy notwithstanding nor Ms. Gifford's amazing recovery from all reports, aren't the priorities in Washington a little off base insofar as just what their jobs truly are once again?
I mean it has been reported that it will take months and months of rehabilitation therapy in order for Ms. Giffords to recover whatever brain functions may have been lost in this attack.
Meanwhile, the citizens in her district are without representation, while members of Congress are hard at work insuring their survival and that of their political parties after this heinous attack?
It is quite unbelieveable that procedures would not be in place in order to temporarily elect another citizen to represent the citizens in District 5 while Ms. Gifford's is recovering, if it is even her intention to continue to serve after what she has been through. I wonder, has anyone consulted her insofar as her future intentions? I mean one article even spoke of a Senate race, for heaven's sake.
Politics as usual, and just wonder whose political livelihoods and future best interests these politicians are attempting to secure?
Rather than representation for the benefit of the citizens of District 5?
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) have been hard at work organizing fundraisers and creating a PAC organization in order to raise monies for Ms. Gifford's 2012 re-election campaign.
This tragedy notwithstanding nor Ms. Gifford's amazing recovery from all reports, aren't the priorities in Washington a little off base insofar as just what their jobs truly are once again?
I mean it has been reported that it will take months and months of rehabilitation therapy in order for Ms. Giffords to recover whatever brain functions may have been lost in this attack.
Meanwhile, the citizens in her district are without representation, while members of Congress are hard at work insuring their survival and that of their political parties after this heinous attack?
It is quite unbelieveable that procedures would not be in place in order to temporarily elect another citizen to represent the citizens in District 5 while Ms. Gifford's is recovering, if it is even her intention to continue to serve after what she has been through. I wonder, has anyone consulted her insofar as her future intentions? I mean one article even spoke of a Senate race, for heaven's sake.
Politics as usual, and just wonder whose political livelihoods and future best interests these politicians are attempting to secure?
Rather than representation for the benefit of the citizens of District 5?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
MYOB Mayor Bloomberg: Arizona Isn't New York, Thank Goodness
It appears the greenhorns and Eastern dandies are hell bent on using the tragedy which recently occurred in Arizona for their own nefarious ends once again.
Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation in Arizona at a Tucson gun show wherein he took his New York thugs to Arizona in order to expose the ease with which someone can buy a gun in the Grand Canyon State.
As one who believes there should be at least some laws governing the sales of assault or automatic weapons throughout the country, which did not exist at the time our Constitution was ratified, I found the Mayor's grandstanding rather revolting, as also a former long term Arizonan.
Arizona is, after all, the epitomy of the west, and just so happens to border a foreign country and government.
One in which there has been historically a great deal of cross borders crime and trafficking ever since Arizona entered into the union. And in which a great deal of the war refugees from these increasingly aggressive wars are also now being resettled, unlike greater Manhattan.
Mr. Bloomberg, your pure ignorance of the differences between Arizona and New York are telling. And so are your methods in order to gain political power at the cost of the recent occurrences in Arizona, and of course the rest of the nation also who have not at all stood behind Arizonans calling for a physical solution to our country's greatest threat: securing and fencing our open and exposed desert expanse and southern borders.
A great deal of the crime which occurs in Arizona is actually facilitated by foreigners, whether domestic or international. Or our youth who have been polluted by the political betrayals of many of our political leaders the past half century, clearly a scenario which is increasing.
Not native Arizonans or longer term residents. But by those from New York and Los Angeles who are primarily responsible for the road rage and gang violence, for example.
MYOB, Mayor Bloomberg.
Arizona isn't New York (and thank goodness).
And it is mainly true collectors that attend such venues as the one in which you staged your political propaganda.
The events which occurred in Tucson were not the result of an attack with a Colt .45.
Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation in Arizona at a Tucson gun show wherein he took his New York thugs to Arizona in order to expose the ease with which someone can buy a gun in the Grand Canyon State.
As one who believes there should be at least some laws governing the sales of assault or automatic weapons throughout the country, which did not exist at the time our Constitution was ratified, I found the Mayor's grandstanding rather revolting, as also a former long term Arizonan.
Arizona is, after all, the epitomy of the west, and just so happens to border a foreign country and government.
One in which there has been historically a great deal of cross borders crime and trafficking ever since Arizona entered into the union. And in which a great deal of the war refugees from these increasingly aggressive wars are also now being resettled, unlike greater Manhattan.
Mr. Bloomberg, your pure ignorance of the differences between Arizona and New York are telling. And so are your methods in order to gain political power at the cost of the recent occurrences in Arizona, and of course the rest of the nation also who have not at all stood behind Arizonans calling for a physical solution to our country's greatest threat: securing and fencing our open and exposed desert expanse and southern borders.
A great deal of the crime which occurs in Arizona is actually facilitated by foreigners, whether domestic or international. Or our youth who have been polluted by the political betrayals of many of our political leaders the past half century, clearly a scenario which is increasing.
Not native Arizonans or longer term residents. But by those from New York and Los Angeles who are primarily responsible for the road rage and gang violence, for example.
MYOB, Mayor Bloomberg.
Arizona isn't New York (and thank goodness).
And it is mainly true collectors that attend such venues as the one in which you staged your political propaganda.
The events which occurred in Tucson were not the result of an attack with a Colt .45.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Mr. Obama: More Jobs In December? Duh!
Gearing up once again (already) for the 2012 run for the roses, Barack Obama announced from a politically determined location in the hard hit industrial north that the economy is improving and December saw the unemployment rate "dip" to 9.4% from 9.8% the month before.
Since December is a month when there are additions of lower paying temporary retail jobs in the private sector for the holiday season, this announcement should come as no surprise to most Americans whose reaction most likely was similar to mine.
A "duh" moment.
Mr. Obama credits the recently passed legislation reducing tax burdens on capital expenditures for businesses, and other perks which were included in the extension of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthy and large, global corporate conglomerates, as the source rather than the obvious.
Of course, with little monies earmarked for American small businesses and start ups, this new job growth can only be a political maneuver on the part of Washington since nothing really has changed at all in the housing market, banking industry or Wall Street to address the actual problems which created this depression/recession to begin with.
Absolutely nothing.
Except pass more and more backdoor taxes in the form of those global carbon taxes, and health care taxes favoring global industry at the cost of the average American which have not kicked in as of yet, but will impact each and every American on a massive basis in just a few short months, or years.
There has been little, if any, of the promised redlining of our huge bureaucratic public sector jobs and their costs, especially in that newly created massive drain on the public post 9-11, Homeland Security, which also has increased the costs and time for most Americans to even travel in all those new airport taxes for all those body scanners that are now being utilized, while our southern and northern borders remain open and the hugely expensive Middle Eastern war continues.
But what can you expect from a so out of touch Washington that is so far left leaning that the Constitution is not only a "thing of wax" but has been utterly destroyed progressively, and never more so than since the 1960's under both political parties' leadership.
Get ready for more spins, since it appears it is "looks" and "lies" that will once again be a major factor in the next election cycle.
Some things NEVER change.
Since December is a month when there are additions of lower paying temporary retail jobs in the private sector for the holiday season, this announcement should come as no surprise to most Americans whose reaction most likely was similar to mine.
A "duh" moment.
Mr. Obama credits the recently passed legislation reducing tax burdens on capital expenditures for businesses, and other perks which were included in the extension of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthy and large, global corporate conglomerates, as the source rather than the obvious.
Of course, with little monies earmarked for American small businesses and start ups, this new job growth can only be a political maneuver on the part of Washington since nothing really has changed at all in the housing market, banking industry or Wall Street to address the actual problems which created this depression/recession to begin with.
Absolutely nothing.
Except pass more and more backdoor taxes in the form of those global carbon taxes, and health care taxes favoring global industry at the cost of the average American which have not kicked in as of yet, but will impact each and every American on a massive basis in just a few short months, or years.
There has been little, if any, of the promised redlining of our huge bureaucratic public sector jobs and their costs, especially in that newly created massive drain on the public post 9-11, Homeland Security, which also has increased the costs and time for most Americans to even travel in all those new airport taxes for all those body scanners that are now being utilized, while our southern and northern borders remain open and the hugely expensive Middle Eastern war continues.
But what can you expect from a so out of touch Washington that is so far left leaning that the Constitution is not only a "thing of wax" but has been utterly destroyed progressively, and never more so than since the 1960's under both political parties' leadership.
Get ready for more spins, since it appears it is "looks" and "lies" that will once again be a major factor in the next election cycle.
Some things NEVER change.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Happy 2011: A New Decade
Happy 2011, and the beginning of a new decade.
Ringing out the old and bringing in the new is becoming a tradition in the American political landscape and the numbers of Independents and those who are fed up with the two political party system which has merged into the Global Socialist Party seems to be increasing.
Let's hope that trend continues, and we see some real changes rather than merely a change of the face behind the podium.
With the true Americans' voices resonating across this great nation that "progress" isn't "progress" when it is merely global government regression under the leadership of the resurrected British Tory Party with global economic dominion and rulership once again the goal.
Ringing out the old and bringing in the new is becoming a tradition in the American political landscape and the numbers of Independents and those who are fed up with the two political party system which has merged into the Global Socialist Party seems to be increasing.
Let's hope that trend continues, and we see some real changes rather than merely a change of the face behind the podium.
With the true Americans' voices resonating across this great nation that "progress" isn't "progress" when it is merely global government regression under the leadership of the resurrected British Tory Party with global economic dominion and rulership once again the goal.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Global Governor Obama Visits India
Global Governor Barack Obama's trip to India has received wide press reporting this past week, a trip which was undertaken within 24 hours of Tuesday's election and apparently another scheduled vacation week after spending most of the last few months on the campaign trail for various Democratic candidates.
I'm just wondering, have the American taxpayers been paying for all the political junkets, and these vacations to foreign countries this past two years?
I mean, it does appear that the jobs of the foreign ambassadors at this point are nothing more than "cake" jobs at the expense of the taxpayers, since during this entire Administration both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton have been out of the country more than they have been in it.
While the United States is still mired in one of its deepest recessions ever (absent the propaganda in the mainstream media pointing to the recession "officially" ending in June 2009, since they clearly must be referring to the global economy and not that of the United States in any coherent manner whatsoever).
The latest reports on the added new jobs since October pointed to the retail sector, restaurants and bars, and medicine primary. Of course with the holidays coming up, these "seasonal" jobs for the most part will be gone by January.
Mr. Obama has been also attempting to put a spin on the number of U.S. jobs that have been outsourced to India during this week long vacation. And just what a few billion dollar trade deals with the U.S. will eventually provide in the way of jobs for Americans.
I wonder what jobs the East Indians can provide for Americans? I mean, their entire tech industry has been one huge massive gain for that country's economy after all the monies both this and the last Administration has poured into Silicon Valley only to have those taxpayer sums then used to hire the East Indian workforce for the most part.
I mean, even the food stamp program in many states is "administered" by companies that are hiring workers from the call centers in New Delhi.
Heads up, Mr. Obama: Global governance is what is killing this country.
And the East Indian workforce needs far less a stimulus than that of the U.S. workforce. I mean, I'm sure all those cell phone companies are making a bundle off the East Indian workforce and the U.S. citizens both that could be then used to reduce the U.S. citizens tax burdens by imposing once again those "import" taxes on foreign goods and labor and reducing the personal income taxes of all but the top 10% earners, since those earners are the ones also gaining their profits at the public's general expense in these free trade deals, and also those taxpayer grants and gimmes.
I mean, it takes Americans twice as long on their cells now to clear up some of those billing errors in those calls to New Delhi. So the U.S. citizens are being hit with treble damages on those cell phone bills as it is.
First for the jobs lost, second for the added call time on their bills, and third for those "income" and added assundry taxes even on those bills passed off to the public that the Indian workforce are not required to pay but they are.
Maybe it's time to phone home for a reality check.
I'm just wondering, have the American taxpayers been paying for all the political junkets, and these vacations to foreign countries this past two years?
I mean, it does appear that the jobs of the foreign ambassadors at this point are nothing more than "cake" jobs at the expense of the taxpayers, since during this entire Administration both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton have been out of the country more than they have been in it.
While the United States is still mired in one of its deepest recessions ever (absent the propaganda in the mainstream media pointing to the recession "officially" ending in June 2009, since they clearly must be referring to the global economy and not that of the United States in any coherent manner whatsoever).
The latest reports on the added new jobs since October pointed to the retail sector, restaurants and bars, and medicine primary. Of course with the holidays coming up, these "seasonal" jobs for the most part will be gone by January.
Mr. Obama has been also attempting to put a spin on the number of U.S. jobs that have been outsourced to India during this week long vacation. And just what a few billion dollar trade deals with the U.S. will eventually provide in the way of jobs for Americans.
I wonder what jobs the East Indians can provide for Americans? I mean, their entire tech industry has been one huge massive gain for that country's economy after all the monies both this and the last Administration has poured into Silicon Valley only to have those taxpayer sums then used to hire the East Indian workforce for the most part.
I mean, even the food stamp program in many states is "administered" by companies that are hiring workers from the call centers in New Delhi.
Heads up, Mr. Obama: Global governance is what is killing this country.
And the East Indian workforce needs far less a stimulus than that of the U.S. workforce. I mean, I'm sure all those cell phone companies are making a bundle off the East Indian workforce and the U.S. citizens both that could be then used to reduce the U.S. citizens tax burdens by imposing once again those "import" taxes on foreign goods and labor and reducing the personal income taxes of all but the top 10% earners, since those earners are the ones also gaining their profits at the public's general expense in these free trade deals, and also those taxpayer grants and gimmes.
I mean, it takes Americans twice as long on their cells now to clear up some of those billing errors in those calls to New Delhi. So the U.S. citizens are being hit with treble damages on those cell phone bills as it is.
First for the jobs lost, second for the added call time on their bills, and third for those "income" and added assundry taxes even on those bills passed off to the public that the Indian workforce are not required to pay but they are.
Maybe it's time to phone home for a reality check.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
