SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
(a) In General- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(21) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to--
`(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
`(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
`(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
`(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
`(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
`(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
`(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.'.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2003-06-18 06:50.
by Mike Vanderboegh
A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:
"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.
Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)
Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)
They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all. Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert.
I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms--handguns, rifles and shotguns--as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million--that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility--everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes. Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).
But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed." The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers such as Charles Schumer would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.
Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him. The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep. Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"--a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.
Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged. There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not--for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that the wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.
Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a childrens' movie of all things, is just such a place.
The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.) The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a "bug cantina" down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.
"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!" I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"
"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."
Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants. Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.
They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance--not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.
Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.
It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master's regime.
It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.
So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.
A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." The Spartans at Thermopylae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered. The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."
The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.
We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now--five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands--what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country. The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.
And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."
But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery. If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way, our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.
US Debt Clock
Perhaps you don't think this debt clock is important. I understand, after all it isn't YOUR debt. Nobody is going to come to YOUR door to collect, right? Wrong. You'll be taxed on your income (more so), on your purchases (sales tax), on your needs (medicine, health care, gasoline, heat, cooling), on the number of kids you have...
Many of us have been extremely frustrated. We are against the destruction of our country which we saw begin in the Bush administration. We are for the Constitution. Many of us have spent at least part of our lives in service defending that constitution. We are oath takers and, we believe, oath keepers. But now, at least for now, we are not in positions of responsibility (I don't like the idea of "position of power", more later) o we write letters/emails to those who are.
More frustration is the result. We send an e-mail to our Representative, Delegate, State or Federal Senator, Governor or the President and we get inane gobbledy gook trying to skirt the issue of what they have actually done or intend to do, how they have actually voted or how they intend to vote or how my opinion is wrong. We watch them on TV, seemingly deaf to our complaints/worries/concerns calling us everything from ignorant, to selfish, to mobs, right-wing ideologues, unpatriotic, and thugs. This despite that anyone can see that it is THEIR operatives who are such things. Their side is often ignorant of who these speakers are, they are violent, they spout anti-American rhetoric and are members of anti-American groups such as Larasa and ACORN.
Some of us are even more frustrated because some of us who are complaining actually voted for these people. Why? It is pure hell to be mislead, to be fooled, by those who claim to be one thing but are something else. This is our situation in our area with the two Senators from Virginia, Mark Warner and Jim Webb both Democrats both elected on the premise that they were going to be loyal to Virginia and Virginian values first, be financially responsible, and be responsive to their constituents. Both received support and votes from a wide range of Virginians as is necessary to win an election here.
Senator Mark Warner was a former governor of the Commonwealth and I think that perhaps he might just get the idea that all this crap is an unbearable financial burden. Maybe. Senator Webb apparently doesn't get it. The only promise he has moderately adhered to is the pro-gun votes he's cast. In that he is the same as his predecessor.
Senator Webb is one of those people who's direction depends on the wind. Perhaps I should say it is whatever blows him best. A Democrat who became a Republican and served in the Reagan administration who became a Democrat when recruited by Senator Charles Schumer to oppose Senator George Allen it is clear that Webb has little loyalty aside from what he gets in return. Since his election, the result of a race in which the Dem/S used the same tactics they accuse their current policy opponents of using, he has been tapped to be a national spokesman for the Dem/S on TV and elsewhere. He's voted the line for the Dem/S. His offices e-mail responses are just so much trash.
I don't suppose that we'll be able to turn him easily. He's beholding to the Dem/S. After Reagan he wasn't in the limelight, he hadn't done much, and now he's got a place of "power" and security. He owes them. Senator Webb has been bought and paid for.
I know a couple of people who voted for Jim Webb. They told me they liked the fact that he was a gun owner, NRA member, that he would defend their gun ownership rights. They liked that he was a former Marine officer and a combat veteran. These particular people felt that he would have an affinity for their service and experience (and this may have been borne out in his legislative actions in support of veterans despite his party's anti-military bent). They also didn't like that George Allen had used some arcane term they had never before heard to describe a heckler at one of his rallies. As we used to say in the Army, one "aw shit" negates a million "attaboys" and as far as they were concerned, that one incident tipped the scales despite Senator Allen's previous votes in support of their positions. This is what got Webb elected, by a very narrow margin (about 8,805 votes).
Currently, Senator Webb's site asks constituents to contact him on the health care issue. I've been trying to do this but keep getting the message, "issues out of synch". Somebody needs to fix his site. As it is he is deaf to our concerns.
My letter to Senator Webb (one of many):
I am absolutely opposed to any legislation by the current Congress regarding, supposedly, health care or health insurance reform. Having read the House bill, HR3200, I see that any bills that would make it to the stage of a joint resolution committee would likely end up with rather onerous provisions that would cost citizens in taxes and direct health care costs as well as in loss of control over their personal health care and loss of availability of health care services.
I fail to see how the expenditure of as much as $2-Trillion under government auspices will somehow reduce the current $600-Billion spent on health care.
I believe we do need tort reform (not tort immunization) to reduce overhead costs for doctors and nurses AND the costs of unnecessary tests.
I believe we need to change the structure of the insurance business such that health care insurance is the same across state lines in the same way as auto insurance.
I believe that we ought to change the "ownership" of insurance to the beneficiary rather than the employer (although provision should be made for employer contributions as part of total employment compensation) so that having insurance from the time one enters the work force will eliminate the concerns over pre-existing conditions.
I believe that we owe our veterans the promised health care for life to retirees and for those with service connected disabilities. Current proposals to eliminate Tricare for Life and the rationing of care at VA hospitals (a vision of things to come?) is unacceptable. As it is, a retiree PAYS for Tricare Prime.
I believe we can do these things without increasing taxes on anyone.
I want to hear, without obfuscation, what you are going to do.
I don't think that this letter is particularly offensive, angry, or confrontational.
His office's response to earlier comments:
August 21, 2009
Mr. and Mrs. ______ _______
___ _________ ______
________, VA _____-____
Dear Mr. _______:
To follow-up on your earlier correspondence regarding health care reform, I wanted to update you on where this issue stands.
As you may know, Congress has adjourned for the month of August without enacting health care reform. During the coming weeks, I will be carefully examining the reform proposals currently on the table. The fact that the legislation is now on hold will give Congress the opportunity to study these proposals carefully and to hear from interested citizens. It is important for us to be very deliberate on an issue of such importance to the lives of our people.
I have stated on several occasions my concerns that the Obama administration should have begun the process with a clear proposal that could have been the starting point for the work of the five separate congressional committees charged with responsibility for this issue. Without such a specific format, Congress has had difficulty crafting a bill of such challenging scope and complexity. I am hopeful that the President will remedy this problem in the coming weeks.
Currently in the Senate, two committees have jurisdiction over health care – the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the Finance Committee. The HELP Committee has completed work on a health reform bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act. This bill aspires to significant reforms in the health insurance market, including provisions to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. In the Finance Committee, negotiations continue on a reform package that might win support from both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate. The success of these ongoing negotiations will be critical in determining whether a bill can be achieved this year.
While most people are understandably satisfied with their health care, the system is not working for millions of American families. Spiraling costs for health care have placed our biggest industries at a severe competitive disadvantage, as employers struggle to provide insurance for their workers. By the same token, families are increasingly unable to depend on their health plans when they need them the most. This has contributed to the mortgage foreclosure crisis and the rise in personal bankruptcies. In short, our nation’s continued economic recovery would be advanced by meaningful health care reform, although such reform must emphatically be reasonable in scope, cost, and impact.
In the coming weeks and months, I encourage you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for updated information about the healthcare reform debate. Additionally, the Senate Finance www.finance.senate.gov and HELP Committees www.help.senate.gov/index.html have posted on their websites useful information about their respective proposals.
Again, I thank you for your past correspondence on this issue. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas with me and my staff.
United States Senator
I submit that he misses, or perhaps is covering, the most essential points. To my mind massive change is not required. The vast majority of those not covered at all are illegals and those who choose not to be covered. Even the insane and indigent are cared for already. The mortgage foreclosure crisis is due to extending loans to those unable to repay them in the first place.
As we approach Labor Day we find that we are more and more laboring for the government and not for our families. We are becoming enslaved by our government. I find it more than a little ironic that a great proponent of this enslavement is the first "black" President. I have little hope that he (or any Democrat) will ever listen to what I have to say. They show no sign of it. This is why we are frustrated.
- The term "position of power" really irritates me. Why? Because these people we choose, ostensibly from among our friends and neighbors, are in those positions to represent us. We have an election to choose who we think will be most representative, most responsible in a position of responsibility. They aren't there to lord it over us, they aren't there to have power over us. They are there to serve. It is a position in which they should humbly work for us.
- "Macaca" was the term used by George Allen. Almost nobody I knew had ever heard the term/word prior to the brouha its off-hand use created. One can find any number of references on the subject.
SEC. 1733. REQUIREMENT OF 12-MONTH CONTINUOUS COVERAGE UNDER CERTAIN CHIP PROGRAMS.
(a) In General- Section 2102(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397bb(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(6) REQUIREMENT FOR 12-MONTH CONTINUOUS ELIGIBILITY- In the case of a State child health plan that provides child health assistance under this title through a means other than described in section 2101(a)(2), the plan shall provide for implementation under this title of the 12-month continuous eligibility option described in section 1902(e)(12) for targeted low-income children whose family income is below 200 percent of the poverty line.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to determinations (and redeterminations) of eligibility made on or after January 1, 2010.
This seems to apply to a family of two with an annual household income of $29,140 or a family of four with an annual household income of $44,100. Of course, if these people weren't paying effective tax rates of 40-50% they might be able to afford their own health care.
Alexander's Essay – August 20, 2009 - Media Blackout
"Equal and exact justice to all men..." -- Thomas Jefferson Editor's Note: PG suggested -- this essay contains graphic descriptions of a brutal crime.
In 1775, John Adams wrote, "There is in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong, a love of truth and a veneration of virtue ... if the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice..."
Adams understood that a shared penchant for justice and virtue is essential to liberty, and depends upon the ability of people to discern between right and wrong.
Today, it is evident to every astute social scientist (and most anyone with common sense) that among definable American subcultures the capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong is severely diminished.
The origin of these deteriorating standards for justice and virtue is rooted in the dissolution of the family, and the failure of our places of worship and our schools to instill those values necessary for self-government -- self-government being the foundation of family-government and that being the foundation of social responsibility.
U.S. urban centers, and to a lesser extent suburban and rural areas, are now home to generations of sociopaths who do not value your life, simply because they do not value their own.
Making matters worse, the MSM perpetuates a virtual blackout of news regarding select sociopaths, while trumpeting allegations and speculations of others. This results in a distorted popular understanding of the extent of the social degradation around us.
Three years ago (March 2006), the Leftmedia spent a year relentlessly convicting in the court of public opinion three white Duke University lacrosse players for a "hate crime" -- the alleged gang rape of a black woman named Crystal Gail Mangum. Millions of dollars in defense-lawyer fees later, it turns out that there was no evidence and that Mangum was a liar. The real victims were, in fact, the accused men: David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty. (All charges were dropped, but there has been no apology yet from 88 Duke professors who jumped on the bandwagon, condemning Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty in an open letter before the first day of their trial.)
Four weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama interrupted a live media propaganda confab promoting his administration's most critical national initiative (nationalizing health care) in order to accuse a white Cambridge, MA, police officer, James Crowley, of "acting stupidly" for arresting Obama's black friend, Henry Gates. That accusation was followed by similar knee-jerk pronouncements of racism by the black governor of Massachusetts and the black mayor of Cambridge. Under such heavy-handed political and media pressure, all charges against Gates were dropped.
The Gates' story dominated the national media headlines for a couple weeks, until it was determined that the officer's actions were, in fact, justified. Obama attempted to make amends by tossing back a few beers with the Gates and Crowley in the Rose Garden, but BO offered no public apology. (Narcissists do not apologize, they just reinterpret the facts.)
This week, there is a trial underway which is racially charged, but, unless you were reading The Patriot back in 2007, chances are you have not heard of this one since it involves a savage black-on-white crime, rather than MSM feeding frenzy accusations of white-on-black crimes.
In the event you were not a reader in '07, allow me to recount this horrendous incident ... because you won't see or hear it from any MSM news outlets.
On 6 January 2007, Channon (age 21) and Christopher (age 23) were out for a Saturday dinner date, after which Channon called her mom to report that they were on the way to visit friends. But Channon and Christopher never arrived at their friends' house -- nor returned home.
The next day, the mutilated and burned remains of Chris Newsom were found along a railroad track. Two days later, Channon's mutilated body was recovered from a trash bin.
Channon and Chris were in Channon's Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked. They were taken to a nearby house, brutally gang-raped, mutilated and then murdered. They were subjected to lengthy torture in each other's presence.
Newsom was raped, his genitals were cut off, and then taken to the railroad tracks where he was shot execution-style. The perpetrators soaked his body with an accelerant and burned his body.
Christian was kept alive for a while longer, repeatedly raped, mutilated, had cleaning solution poured down her throat in an attempt to destroy DNA evidence, and then stuffed inside a trash can where she suffocated to death.
This appalling attack is more than a case study in sociopathic evil. It is a case study about which stories the MSM headlines and which they do not. Yes, there are some 17,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year, but this double murder was clearly far more barbaric, far more monstrous, than most.
Regrettably, there is nothing new about the racial aspect of this story, which may explain why it was not national news. Although blacks represent just 12 percent of the U.S. population, black perpetrators are convicted by a jury of their peers in more than half of all murder and manslaughter cases. Additionally, per-capita black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than the inverse.
The underlying social factors contributing to such racially unbalanced crime statistics have been delineated by many conservative black leaders and academicians. However, their solutions -- most notably promoting family unity, faith-based programs, better schools and individual responsibility and accountability, contradict leftist political objectives, which seek to maintain black folks' status as wards of the state. (The modern Democrat implementation of a plantation system.)
Charged in the torture/murder of Chanon and Christopher were Eric Boyd, Letalvis Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman.
In April 2008, Boyd was convicted in federal court of being an accessory after the fact, but the MSM was too busy fawning over the candidacy of Barack Obama to report that conviction. (Boyd's case is on appeal.)
"One down. Four to go," said Channon's father, Gary Christian.
He and Channon's mother, Deena have been present at all the proceedings. "We do this for Channon," said Deena. "We've been through the worst. We and the Newsoms have lost our children. We can endure anything."
This week, the trial of a second defendant, Letalvis Cobbins, is underway, but it's safe to say that the prosecution of this defendant will pass without a satellite news-link truck anywhere in sight.
I draw your attention to this case not only to mourn the murder of this young couple, but also to call attention to a despicable political double standard which includes the MSM's complicity in advancing that standard.
In 1998, three white men in Jasper, Texas, beat a black man, James Byrd, then chained him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him three miles to his death. Not surprisingly, Byrd's murder received national media attention -- as it should.
Clearly, hate was a motivating factor in the Jasper case, but it was also a motivating factor in Knoxville, though not a "hate crime" as defined by federal law. So, why do white-on-black hate crimes invariably result in a media feeding frenzy, while black-on-white hate crimes receive nary a mention?
What about the double standard when it comes to race-hustling poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (who fabricated the Tawana Brawley rape hoax)? The only difference in racists such as Jackson and Sharpton and those in the KKK is that the latter are not Leftmedia celebs.
To that end, my colleague Walter Williams posited this query: "What have we heard from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who rushed to judgment and outrage as they condemned whites in the cases of the 'Jena 6' and Don Imus when he referred to the Rutgers ladies basketball team as 'nappy-headed ho's'? Where were the national news media and public officials? You can bet the rent money that, were the victims black and the perpetrators white, Knoxville would have been inundated with TV crews, with Jackson, Sharpton and other civil rights spokesmen and politicians from both parties condemning racism, possibly blaming it all on George Bush..."
As for the defendants in this case, Knox County has already paid in excess of $350 thousand to prosecute and defend these monsters. Based on the eyewitness account of defendant Vanessa Coleman, the question before Cobbins' jury, and those yet to be empanelled for the other defendants, is not one of guilt or innocence, but guilty of what charges.
Those found guilty will be treated to either life imprisonment, with all entitlements, or life on death row for maybe a couple decades -- all at a cost to taxpayers of more than $100 thousand per year per convict.
Martin Luther King, in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail, proclaimed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The MSM blackout of this crime is a grave injustice.
To the families and friends of Channon and Christopher, we share your grief and will continue this vigil with you until justice is served.
Further note: The Snopes link is provided as proof that the crime did occur. However, the poster notes that Snopes is still apologetic about the vitriol leveled at the black men who perpetrated the crime and attempts to "level the field" by showing how O.J. Simpson was prosecuted (not convicted, not punished) for the crime of simple murder of two white people.
One had best read history. Has anyone ever heard of the Reichstag?
In Colorado they may have.
Why is this important? Because in February 1933 the Nazis apparently burnt the Reichstag in order to give them reason to declare a national emergency. You might believe that President Lyndon Johnson did the same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No matter which side you might be on in this dicussion, you must acknowledge that other groups have done such things in the past. I believe we might just see it again.
Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting a change in the state law that determines how his Senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his eighth full term ends in 2012. Current law mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Mr. Kennedy is concerned that such a delay could leave his fellow Democrats in the Senate one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority for months while a special election takes place.
"I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs," writes the Senator.
What Mr. Kennedy doesn't volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry's replacement.
This bothers me so much because this man who is being lionized by so many for his long "service" is nothing but an elitist prig. He's shown that he doesn't think that the voters can choose a competent replacement.
Senator Teddy Kennedy is Dead
He was closer than we thought and as I said earlier, willing to work right up to the end supporting the destruction of this country. How or why he came to this point is beyond me. How a man kills a young woman and continues in public life, how he supports policies that would have prevented the birth of such as one sister or likely will withhold medical care from such as another sister devoted her life to supporting through the Special Olympics boggles the mind. How he could treat with the communists or treat women in the way his father did, unfathomable. The New York Times obit (partial, it goes on for six more pages!)
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: August 26, 2009
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night. He was 77.
The death of Mr. Kennedy, who had been battling brain cancer, was announced Wednesday morning in a statement by the Kennedy family, which was already mourning the death of the senator’s sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver two weeks earlier.
“Edward M. Kennedy — the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply – died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port,” the statement said. “We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever.”
President Obama issued a statement acknowledging Mr. Kennedy’s accomplishments. “An important chapter in our history has come to an end,” the statement said. “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time.”
Mr. Kennedy had been in precarious health since he suffered a seizure in May 2008. His doctors determined the cause was a malignant glioma, a brain tumor that often carries a grim prognosis.
As he underwent cancer treatment, Mr. Kennedy was little seen in Washington, appearing most recently at the White House in April as Mr. Obama signed a national service bill that bears the Kennedy name. Last week Mr. Kennedy urged Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law and let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a temporary replacement upon his death, to assure that the state’s representation in Congress would not be interrupted by a special election.
While Mr. Kennedy was physically absent from the capital in recent months, his presence was deeply felt as Congress weighed the most sweeping revisions to America’s health care system in decades, an effort Mr. Kennedy called “the cause of my life.”
On July 15, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, which Mr. Kennedy headed, passed health care legislation, and the battle over the proposed overhaul is now consuming Capitol Hill.
Mr. Kennedy was the last surviving brother of a generation of Kennedys that dominated American politics in the 1960s and that came to embody glamour, political idealism and untimely death. The Kennedy mystique — some call it the Kennedy myth — has held the imagination of the world for decades, and it came to rest on the sometimes too-narrow shoulders of the brother known as Teddy.
Mr. Kennedy, who served 46 years as the most well-known Democrat in the Senate, longer than all but two other senators, was the only one of those brothers to reach old age. President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were felled by assassins’ bullets in their 40s. The eldest brother, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., died in 1944 at the age of 29 while on a risky World War II bombing mission.
Mr. Kennedy spent much of last year in treatment and recuperation, broken by occasional public appearances and a dramatic return to the Capitol last summer to cast a decisive vote on a Medicare bill.
He electrified the opening night of the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August with an unscheduled appearance and a speech that had delegates on their feet. Many were in tears.
His gait was halting, but his voice was strong. “My fellow Democrats, my fellow Americans, it is so wonderful to be here, and nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America, to restore its future, to rise to our best ideals and to elect Barack Obama president of the United States.”
Senator Kennedy was at or near the center of much of American history in the latter part of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st. For much of his adult life, he veered from victory to catastrophe, winning every Senate election he entered but failing in his only try for the presidency; living through the sudden deaths of his brothers and three of his nephews; being responsible for the drowning death on Chappaquiddick Island of a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, a former aide to his brother Robert. One of the nephews, John F. Kennedy Jr., who the family hoped would one day seek political office and keep the Kennedy tradition alive, died in a plane crash in 1999 at age 38.
Mr. Kennedy himself was almost killed in 1964, in a plane crash that left him with permanent back and neck problems.
He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, one of the institution’s most devoted students, said of his longtime colleague, “Ted Kennedy would have been a leader, an outstanding senator, at any period in the nation’s history.”
Mr. Byrd is one of only two senators to have served longer in the chamber than Mr. Kennedy; the other was Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. In May 2008, on learning of Mr. Kennedy’s diagnosis of a lethal brain tumor, Mr. Byrd wept openly on the floor of the Senate.
Born to one of the wealthiest American families, Mr. Kennedy spoke for the downtrodden in his public life while living the heedless private life of a playboy and a rake for many of his years. Dismissed early in his career as a lightweight and an unworthy successor to his revered brothers, he grew in stature over time by sheer longevity and by hewing to liberal principles while often crossing the partisan aisle to enact legislation. A man of unbridled appetites at times, he nevertheless brought a discipline to his public work that resulted in an impressive catalog of legislative achievement across a broad landscape of social policy.
Mr. Kennedy left his mark on legislation concerning civil rights, health care, education, voting rights and labor. He was chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at his death. But he was more than a legislator. He was a living legend whose presence ensured a crowd and whose hovering figure haunted many a president.
Although he was a leading spokesman for liberal issues and a favorite target of conservative fund-raising appeals, the hallmark of his legislative success was his ability to find Republican allies to get bills passed. Perhaps the last notable example was his work with President George W. Bush to pass No Child Left Behind, the education law pushed by Mr. Bush in 2001. He also co-sponsored immigration legislation with Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. One of his greatest friends and collaborators in the Senate was Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican.
Mr. Kennedy had less impact on foreign policy than on domestic concerns, but when he spoke his voice was influential. He led the Congressional effort to impose sanctions on South Africa over apartheid, pushed for peace in Northern Ireland, won a ban on arms sales to the dictatorship in Chile and denounced the Vietnam War. In 2002, he voted against authorizing the Iraq war; later, he called that opposition “the best vote I’ve made in my 44 years in the United States Senate.”...
It bears repeating, they LIE when it suits their purpose...
This happened a bit ago now but bears repeating. It points up just how deceptive NBC and MSNBC are in their bald-faced support of the Obama machine.
A man carries two guns at an Obama health care rally in Phoenix, AZ.
BUT what they don't tell you is that he is black...
Talk about astroturfing....Democrats plan hundreds of reform rallies, conversely the Republicans, as a party, weren't involved in any of the tea parties, aren't involved in the anti-health "care" reform protests, and aren't leading things like the March on Washington scheduled for 12 September.
Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Health Care Bills, they aren't the only concern...
These Dem/S seem fixated on forcing through radical health "care" reform. The POTUS is POed at the Republicans for fomenting opposition. Various Senators think they can
"get this done" and that includes Republicans. I think that they just don't get it.
I want them to get the heck out of my business (rather, my wife's business, they already own my health care which they don't provide). I don't want ANY bill because I know that when the Senate and House bills are reconciled the Dem/S can make it all House bill and shove it through. What I want is NO bill, NOTHING.
That is pretty much the feeling of the grassroots movement. OK, POTUS, there is Republican opposition. Do you know why? BECAUSE IT IS A MARKETING OPPORTUNITY! They see that the grassroots, the conservatives, moderates and even some liberals, who hate the HUGE deficit and other aspects of this and they see an opportunity to win votes. You, on the other hand, are so arrogant and/or stupid that you are confusing the two groups. The grassroots is really POed at the Republicans as well. Why do you think that Sarah Palin left the governorship? Why do you think that here in VA Chris Saxman is leaving the House of Delegates.
These people are leaving because they see a purpose, an opportunity, in distancing themselves from the majority of politicians in EITHER major party. Stimulus, C.A.R.S., health "care", permissive immigration, huge deficits and so on are simply an anathema to thinking, responsible Americans. I believe that this is actually a majority of the country. Where these folks would never have walked the streets, protested with signs, etc, they are now. That is a sign of just how POed they really are.
Health "care" bills aren't our only concern, they are just the battlefield of the moment.
What if you had known?
What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States?
1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
3.. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 32 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via Internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his praises like state-run media in communist countries?
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran. (And maybe under review by ACORN.)
I know, I know what you will say. That will never happen in America. But if you had known, and you are happy with all of the above changes, then do not pass this on.
This came to me in an e-mail. Just thought I'd share it with you in this way.
It isn't because you're black, it's because you're a doofus! Oh, and an adulterer. Heck for all I know you're a tax evader like every other Democrat/Socialist... Seems like that "pales" next to your "blackness".
Tea Party Reporting
We had a tea party here in Staunton on 1 August 2009. About 500+ people were there. I think attendance was pretty steady with some coming and going and about 1/3 to 1/2 leaving when it started to rain right at the scheduled end. I've reported on it earlier so I won't repeat myself.
It is interesting that no local news organization reported on it at all. None even mentioned it. They didn't mention the fliers, the numerous volunteers who publicized it or provided the tentage, etc used by the organizers. They didn't discuss the attendees including a State Delegate who will not seek reelection (although that was discussed) and spoke about why he wasn't seeking reelection at the event. They had no representatives there, took no photos, didn't call and solicit any comments about it, in short, they did nothing at all. Why?
Attended by a cross section of the community (whites, blacks, young, old, rich, not-so-rich, etc, if you didn't understand "cross section"), This group came together and mostly loudly agreed that the government was spending too much, was too crooked, and that our representatives no longer listen to us.
Even our local paper doesn't listen to us...
In related news... I've been awaiting an announcement by Senators Warner and Webb of a "town hall" where we could go to ask a few questions about their votes. Hopefully, I would get an answer that wasn't one selected by an office worker from among those approved by a senatorial aide, for Harry Reid.
545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee - just how rude can you be?
So she had the gumption to have a "town hall" meeting despite her votes to impoverish the country but she couldn't be bothered to be polite to her employers...
Somebody asked me why this was important. Let me ask you something. If you were called to a meeting by your employer and your phone rang (because you'd been so thoughtless to not turn it off or turn off the ring tone) would you answer it? What would your employer think if you did take a personal call in the middle of his asking a question? Would he be feeling disrespected? Would it be disrespectful?
I submit that you wouldn't dare do this to your employer. WE are the Representatives' employers. They are at the town halls to answer to their bosses. It sure ain't the other way 'round.
H.R. 3200 isn't changed, we have not "won"
You need to let your congress critter know what you think about H.R. 3200. To do that you need to read it. It seems to me to be much more about control than about health care or health insurance reform. You may think that recent news about eliminating the "death panels" or the "public option" are correct. They are not. H.R. 3200 has NOT been amended. Congress isn't in session to do so. Furthermore, I believe the advocates of this bill, mostly Dem/S, are so arrogant that they would vote for it without any regard for the constituents wishes. I've been called foolish for being so cynical. I think not. At least one representative has said so. Representative Eric Massa effectively "flips off" those who voted for him.
Congressman has Swastika Painted on Official Signage
The sign outside an office was painted with a swastika. You can see a photo of this travesty there. However, I have a different view of WHY the sign was so painted. You see, I don't think it was a warning. I don't think it is because the Representative is black. I think it is because he has been marked/labeled as a NAZI. A facist. A controller. An elitist. I believe that his "blackness" isn't even a consideration. I think that he thinks it is because he's been conditioned to use that response. He's received e-mail that refers to him using the "N" word. But that is a label. I think the swastika is a label, too. Surely, in a southern, white majority district (where at least some whites MUST have voted for him, and Democrats at that) there will be some who use the pejorative word. Again, it is a label. That's what haters do, they label. They've marked you for others to see just what you are.
It ain't over on health care...
The mainstream press wants to put the issue to bed with the President (but neither the Senate nor House) rolling over on the "public option" or government provided health insurance. But there's more, much more, to this 1000+ page bill than death panels and the public option. You NEED to read it, you NEED to stay on top of your representatives and if you won't you will suffer for it.
What we do need is the following:
- Tort reform such that true malpractice can be pursued while fraudulent claims won't cost doctors or their insurers an "arm and a leg". This will do a great deal to reduce overhead.
- Portability of insurance, job to job. One way you can do that is to have YOU own the insurance, not your boss. Since you're more likely to get it early in your career this will, to some extent, mitigate the next problem, pre-existing conditions.
- Pre-existing conditions have to be addressed. This is a thorny problem in that as medical science improves, more conditions are discovered and that we can't be asking the insurers to just give us money for our bills with opportunity for profit.
- Encourage doctors to treat the uninsured by means of tax cuts (credits or deductions) for such care. Sure it costs the government (us) something but it is far less than any government control.
- We need more doctors. The government can make the career choice more attractive with many tools such as tort reform, simplification of paperwork, tax credits, student loan rates for grads who actually become practicing doctors.
Beware. Everybody who wants to make a deal starts with a high cost knowing they will have to negotiate away some of that cost. A person who's selling a car will ask $500 more than he's willing to take knowing there will be negotiation. Rather than making a counteroffer we need to say "NO SALE" and walk away. This bill is a clunker and we don't need to be giving the government all our cash for it.
A random thought... "blatitude"
An acquaintance and I were discussing cap and trade and health "care" "reform". He said that he felt we should give the first black president our support. I said that I feel we shouldn't give ANY president all our money and all our freedoms. He repeated the "first black president" rationale. I had to think about that...
You see the country didn't elect a BLACK president. They elected a smooth talking, middle of the road, semi-populist, rich lawyer. I say that because despite his long association with a black church pastored by the Rev. Wright, he sold himself as just such a person. I submit that mere skin color doesn't make one black anymore.
A friend once told me that his family referred to it as "blatitude". You see, he had in his family some folks who simply worked hard and strove for the American dream and were happy with their accomplishments. His family also had some folks who were eternally angry about their blackness. They resent whites for their "position" (even whites that worked for them), resented whites for their wealth (even though they knew many who were much less wealthy than they themselves were), and so forth and so on. In short, they adhered to the Farakhan/Wright view of whites as devils to be destroyed. Furthermore, they wore this life view on their sleeve freely expressing to any and all about these "injustices" and, now, how they were finally in the drivers seat. In short, they exhibited "blatitude".
Prior to the election the POTUS didn't particularly exhibit "blatitude" and so he didn't set off any alarm bells in many Americans. I think that the failure of Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson to get more political support was entirely due to their level of "blatitude". Think about it, would "blatitude" turn you off?
Writers don't like NBC scheduling...
Many of you know, if you watch TV, that Leno was booted from the Tonight show but is scheduled to take over NBC's 10PM weekday time slot. Hollywood writers aren't happy about it because it limits job opportunities. Ok, I get that. My thing is this. The writers write crap. Pure, unadulterated, crap. They write anti-american, anti- family values, anti-decency, salacious, stupid, crap.
Maybe it is "just me". Maybe I've matured such that I can see the crap for what it is. Maybe I've seen so much crap it just bores me. Maybe I've finally learned not to waste my time on crap.
They talk about "Heroes". We watched it. Then it became crap. Weird, let's do anything to create "drama" even if it makes absolutely no sense crap. We've been watching "Lost". It is getting awfully close to crap. It comes close every episode. Only the idea that certain of the players have been played and fooled by a Satan equivalent on a modern Brigadoon makes it worth pursuing when there is absolutely nothing else to watch.
The Law and Order series has legions of fans and collected numerous awards and my wife likes it. But it is rife with factual errors, political agenda and salacious descriptions. The writers substitute political soliloquy for character development.
I notice that the writers aren't complaining about the endless "reality" programming. Everyone from Atlantic housewives, to F-list celebrities, to truckers has their own "reality" show with cameras conveniently placed to catch the perfect angle on a dramatic turn of events. I'm betting this is because these shows ARE scripted, giving these "writers" a profit stream.
I would rather engage the dog in a game of tic-tac-toe than watch most anything on TV. So, I submit that these writers start producing something of value which we can watch without checking to ensure the trashcan or bucket is nearby. Maybe then NBC and others will go back to dramas...
Death Panels Out... Really?
It has been reported that the Senate has removed the "death panels" from their health care/insurance "reform" bill. Big whoop. You do know, don't you, that the Senate/House conference comittee can just slap 'em right back into the bill for the POTUS signature? Red herring. When they KILL the WHOLE bill is when I'll believe we've won a round.
¶ posted by Hobie 2:19 PM0 CommentsLinks to this post
Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.
Some of your duties as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist may include:
* Assist with the supervision and management of confinement and detention operations * Provide external security to confinement/corrections facilities or detention/internment facilities * Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program * Prepare or review reports and records of prisoners/internees and programs
Job training for an Internment/Resettlement Specialist requires nine weeks of Basic Training, where you'll learn basic Soldiering skills, and eight weeks of Advanced Individual Training. Part of this time is spent in the classroom and part in a field environment. Some of the skills you'll learn are:
* Military laws and jurisdictions * Level of Force Procedures * Unarmed Self-Defense Techniques * Police Deviance and Ethics Procedures * Interpersonal Communications Skills * Close confinement operations * Search and restraint procedures * Use of firearms * Custody and control procedures
Helpful attributes include:
* An ability to think and react quickly * An ability to remain calm in stressful situations * An interest in law enforcement and crime prevention * Being physically fit
Advanced level Internment/Resettlement Specialist provides guidance, supervises and trains other Soldiers within the same discipline. As an advanced level I/R Specialist, you may be involved in:
* Supervise and establish all administrative, logistical and food support operations, confinement/correctional, custodial, treatment, and rehabilitative activities * Responsible for all personnel working in the confinement/correctional facility, including security, logistical, and administrative management of the prisoner/internee population * Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp * Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility
back to top RELATED CIVILIAN JOBS
The skills you'll learn as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist will help prepare you for a future with federal, state, county or city law enforcement agencies or the federal penal system. You might also be able to pursue a career as a security guard with industrial firms, airports or other businesses and institutions.
and the old...
31E: Corrections Specialist
Major Duties: The corrections specialist controls, supervises, and counsels military prisoners and manages confinement operations and correctional treatment programs. Duties for MOS 31E at each level of skill are:
* Skill Levels o Skill Level 1 MOSC 31E1O. Assists with supervision and management of military prisoners, and provides external security to confinement/ corrections facility.
o Skill Level 2 MOSC 31E2O. Supervises, counsels and manages military prisoners in confinement/correction facilities.
o Skill Level 3 MOSC 31E3O. Supervises confinement facility operations, counseling, management, training and employment of military prisoners in confinement/corrections facility.
o Skill Level 4 MOSC 31E4O. Supervises confinement facility operations and establishes procedures for counseling, management, training and employment of military prisoners in confinement/correction facility.
o Skill Level 5 MOSC 31E5O. Supervises and establishes procedures for all type activities within confinement/correction facility.
Physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS. The corrections specialist must possess the following qualifications:
(1) Physical Demands Rating: moderately heavy
(2) Physical Profile: 222221
(3) Red/green color discrimination.
(4) Minimum score of 100 in aptitude area ST.
(5) No court-martial convictions. No record of any disciplinary action under UCMJ which indicates behavior inconsistent with the high standards of corrections specialist.
(6) No record of more than 15 days lost under section 972-10-USC, appendix 3, MCM 1068.
(7) No record of civilian convictions other than minor traffic offenses.
(8) No information in Provost Marshal Office, Intelligence Office, Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) or medical records whch would prevent the granting of a security clearance under AR 604-5.
(9) No record of pre-trial intervention or conviction by military or civil court of the following:
(a) Any offense involving force or violence.
(b) Any offense listed under para 4-22, AR 601-210 (misdemeanor), or similar offense not listed for which the maximum possible sentence exceeds 4 months of confinement.
(c) Two or more offenses within 5 years prior to the date of enlistment listed under AR 601-210, para 4-21, (minor non-traffic), or similar offense not listed for which the maximum possible sentence is less than 4 months confinement.
(10) Must possess a valid statemotor vehicle operator.
(11) Minimum age of 18 at time of entrance on active duty.
(12) No medically diagnosed history of alcoholism, psychotic disorders, antisocial behavior, objection to bearing and use of arms when necessary of any hehavioral characteristic which may be considered prejudicial to the reliable performance of corrections specialist duties.
(13) No record of possession or use of any narcotic or nonnarcotic drug as defined by Article 134, UCMJ and AR 600-50. (Personnel entering active duty may be granted waiver at Military Entrance Processing Station by the PERSCOM Security Interviewed per DoD Policy on cannabis use).
(14) Formal training (completion of MOS 95C course conducted under the auspices of the Commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School) mandatory.
MOS 31E had the alphanumeric designator of 95C prior to fiscal year 2004.
The major duties, physical demands, physical profile, and skill levels were obtained from Army Pamphlet 611-21.
Cash for Clunkers News
We're getting a bit old news with this but I thought it interesting. People seemed to be turning most of their C.A.R.S. money (aka "cash for clunkers") into light trucks and SUVs. Something ironic about that in that the program was supposed to help Government Motors sell it's green machines...
The program, which ran out of money in 4 days and demonstrated government excellence in management, has been funded to the tune of another $2BILLION of our tax money to bail out the auto industry.
This 27½ year U. S. Army veteran was ready and accepting every day all during that time that I might be placed in a position in which my life was forfeit. I have paid my federal income taxes every year since I started earning an income even though I was sometimes below the poverty level. I have voted every year I was able since I turned 18.
Now, after you have with the aid of your party moved our country to the brink of bankruptcy you call me an evil-monger for protesting your actions. I say sir that YOU are the evil-monger. YOU are a liar. YOU are a traitor. YOU are despicable. YOU are a thief. YOU have stolen my grand-childrens' future.
HR 3200 To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.
You ought to read it. Note the "and for other purposes". That's the kicker. It is mostly that since it won't give us affordable, quality health care or reduce the growth in health care spending. What it will do is take control of YOUR life from YOU and give it to some faceless bureaucrat. Oh, it MIGHT be well intentioned but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Read it.
I don't want...
The POTUS came to my state to campaign for Creigh Deeds for governor, among other things, and made a speech. Well, I want a few things myself. I want YOU to stop stealing from me, my children, my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. I want YOU to stop thinking that your activism somehow is better than MY activism or that I'm not entitled to speak my mind about MY country. But he goes on, and it is all about him...
"America's Got Talent" (but we don't keep talent on the show)
We've been watching "America's Got Talent". It was together time for the missus and me. No longer. Tonight the judges (Hasselhoff and the formerly reasonable Mrs. Osbourne) chose a fourth rate frisbee dog act over a very talented young singer/piano player. The show has jumped the shark. I know that I won't be watching the show again.
Of course they had the equivalent humans, aka "flippers". They had to be out of their flippin' minds to have those acts there. How in the hell could you sit in those Las Vegas theater seats for 90 minutes to watch flipping? Flippin' stupid. Piers Morgan was right. This is scandalous. How can the producers claim to be looking for talent when they make such choices. It is a good thing that Simon Cowell has signed for another 3 years of "American Idol".
Just in Case You Didn't see the Brown Shirts in Action
The Dem/S have got their brownshirts out in force now. They have to shut down the protests at the town hall meetings. Of course their abuse of a true grass roots resistance to the destruction of the U.S. is spontaneous...
So you think the AARP is working for you?
If you're over 50 the AARP comes a courting you for your membership dollars. They promise benefits but never tell you that they will sell you down the river for their personal aggrandizement. Some have caught on and tried to confront them with these results.
and about that Governor Mark Sanford...
What a darn sleazebag! It isn't enough that he cheats on his wife and has some of the most bizarre behavior I've ever seen in a cheating spouse, but he has to steal, as a matter of course, every day, from the state of South Carolina. The man belongs in JAIL.
Don't they ever stop?
So, tonight, the wife guilts me into spending some quality time with her in front of the TV. The show? Law and Order, Criminal Intent. It's a new one with Jeff Goldblum called "Revolution". The show is about a holdover from the Baader-Meinhof gang who takes the opportunity presented by the current financial troubles to begin again with the revolution. Of course, they (the producers/writers/NBC) tried to ink the Baader-Meinhof gang with the tea parties real American patriots are using to express their dissatisfaction with the current administration. Funny how they do that, huh?
It is a full court press (a term I'm sure our basketball loving POTUS understands) to demonize the opposition. They have to do that because the truth is that their acts are intended to destroy the country. If you recognize that, then you are a threat. I'm sure I've been reported to the White House office on un-American activities (or whatever they are calling those that maintain their enemies list). No, they won't stop...
Congressman Jefferson guilty on 11 of 16 counts of corruption
Thanks for the least corrupt House of Representatives Speaker Pelosi... Read about it here. Now if they would only prosecute Congressman Murtha (an embarrassment to the USMC officer corps).
arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas—and ditched their civic manners
Never heard that wehn they were criticizing President Bush (41 OR 43).
"These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having," Reid said. "They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets."
Sorry Senator Harry Reid but I'm taking my cues from my personal desire that you stay the hell out of my personal business and out of my wallet.
"It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said...
So this guy who gets sweetheart deals from Countrywide Mortgage while he overseas the industry in his official capacity is going to make the case that the government cares more about me than I do. That's bullshit and nothing more.
These people are talking about how they care about us but they can't seriously think we believe this stuff. I mean, how can they complain that health care costs $600B but propose spending $2T to "cut costs"? How can they say they want to help the uninsured when the bill will dis-insure 300 million to insure 5 million? How can cuts in Medicare/Medicaid in any way mean anything but cutting care to senior citizens as they've done in the United Kingdom and Canada where seniors DIE (some in great pain) because treatment, even pain medication, costs too much?
For us, the American ideal is personified in the concept of self-reliance, work ethic, honesty/forthrightness, decency, personal property rights, family, religion, an ability to defend oneself from criminals and crooked politicians, and personal responsibility.