Ok I have to say that if I see or hear of one more Hollywood singer or actor coming out in support of Obama or some mad dictor of the world like Chavez I swear to God I am gonna puke. WTF? Really guys?
I know Hollywood is enamored of the left liberal ideologies I get that- I don't like it but I get it, however what I don't get is them cozying up to nutjobs like Chavez. Its worse than the way they worship Obama and his extreme ideologies. It's just sickening.
If these Hollywood big shots like communism and socialism so much-there is but a fine line between the two by the way- then I would suggest they go live in one of those countries. Venezuela and China are good starts or maybe France even. The same coincidentally goes for the radicals running the White House and congress. Stop promoting socialistic ideas and their leaders, but then being more than content to live off the capitalism that makes them rich. I could name a few here and I think I will-Sting,Penn,Serandon, and Moore are chief examples.
I like my capitalism as flawed as it is sometimes and really am starting to get pissed off at the way it is being systematically dismantled piece by piece by the left.
What happened to the old days when they kept things like that largely private? Its like they, along with most of the media are nothing but an arm of the extreme left these days.
So inclusion, I would say to Hollywood just stick to doing Hollywood type stuff such as singing and acting and stay the he** out of politics period -right or left. Leave the politicking to the mostly corrupt politicians in office these days and just act or whatever it is you do. If you want to be political; run for office otherwise SHUT UP ALREADY! And stay away from dictators.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Why don't the liberals seem to get it?
I am wondering why the left just doesn't seem to get it when it comes to economics? It is basic economics 101 that the more you tax the less people will have to spend and the less jobs there will be. Likewise, over-regulation has the same effect- it depresses the economy and the job market.
A more disturbing thought is that they are doing this on purpose. They know they are creating chaos- that they are deliberately trying to crash the system in order to remake it into a more socialist friendly country. Given all the radicals communist/socialist sympathizers in Obamas staff(some of whom have blatantly said they admire individuals like Mao) it really wouldn't surprise me. It frightens me to think that I am being slowly deprived on my individual rights so the government that is supposed to be working FOR US, can do all these socialist type things-all in the name of the "greater good".
Why is it that whenever you say you oppose something the radical left wants such as their version of"healthcare reform" or bailouts, you are demonized and marginalized? According to some on the left I am a racist redneck because I went to and proudly marched in a tea party? Wow I had no idea! Thanks for the clue guys.
And why the assult on Fox News and yes they are a news channel despite what that nut Emanuel wants you to believe. I thought they were all for diversity? It doesn't sound like it to me. When they want to institute things like "Net Neutrality" or re institute the "Fairness Doctrine" the completely contradict themselves. Those things while on the "surface" might sound good are really just attempts at silencing the voices of opposition.
Its scary and I feel really helpless to do anything about any of this, I can only pray.
A more disturbing thought is that they are doing this on purpose. They know they are creating chaos- that they are deliberately trying to crash the system in order to remake it into a more socialist friendly country. Given all the radicals communist/socialist sympathizers in Obamas staff(some of whom have blatantly said they admire individuals like Mao) it really wouldn't surprise me. It frightens me to think that I am being slowly deprived on my individual rights so the government that is supposed to be working FOR US, can do all these socialist type things-all in the name of the "greater good".
Why is it that whenever you say you oppose something the radical left wants such as their version of"healthcare reform" or bailouts, you are demonized and marginalized? According to some on the left I am a racist redneck because I went to and proudly marched in a tea party? Wow I had no idea! Thanks for the clue guys.
And why the assult on Fox News and yes they are a news channel despite what that nut Emanuel wants you to believe. I thought they were all for diversity? It doesn't sound like it to me. When they want to institute things like "Net Neutrality" or re institute the "Fairness Doctrine" the completely contradict themselves. Those things while on the "surface" might sound good are really just attempts at silencing the voices of opposition.
Its scary and I feel really helpless to do anything about any of this, I can only pray.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A reasonable question (well quite acutally lol) for unreasonable times
I want to know if Mr. Obama doesn't believe all the radical ideas of those that surround/surrounded him, then why does he have so many of them so close to him?
Why does the media, with the exception of Fox constantly cover up for them and, Mr. Obama for that matter, whenever they get caught in a lie or having said something not too kosher. Why do they make excuses for them?
Why, when Mr. Obama promised transparency, are the republicans and their noteworthy ideas on healthcare and the ecomony, constantly and blatently ignored and leftout whenever possible?
Why the shock and awe manuevers on healthcare? Whats the rush? Shouldn't we take our time and look at EVERYBODY'S ideas?
Why does Mr.Obama feel the need to cowtow to our enemies the way he has and to not stand up our allies such as Israel? Why he is constantly apologizing for us like he is? Doesn't he know how weak that makes us look?
Lastly why is he printing money like it's monoply money?
To quote Glenn Beck
"Reasonable questions for unreasonable times"
Why does the media, with the exception of Fox constantly cover up for them and, Mr. Obama for that matter, whenever they get caught in a lie or having said something not too kosher. Why do they make excuses for them?
Why, when Mr. Obama promised transparency, are the republicans and their noteworthy ideas on healthcare and the ecomony, constantly and blatently ignored and leftout whenever possible?
Why the shock and awe manuevers on healthcare? Whats the rush? Shouldn't we take our time and look at EVERYBODY'S ideas?
Why does Mr.Obama feel the need to cowtow to our enemies the way he has and to not stand up our allies such as Israel? Why he is constantly apologizing for us like he is? Doesn't he know how weak that makes us look?
Lastly why is he printing money like it's monoply money?
To quote Glenn Beck
"Reasonable questions for unreasonable times"
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama- The peace prize? ARE YOU KDDING ME??
I am so stunned and angry I don't even hardly know where to start. Why in the name of all that is holy did HE get a peace prize? What did he do that deserved something like that? All he did was suck up to our enemies and apologize for us (for what I have no idea and dont even mention Iraq) and make us look weak as a nation. OBAMA THE PEACE PRIZE! WTF!!
He spent more kissing behinds of our enemies such as Iran and North Korea,to lesser extent even France. He spent so much time,in fact that it took him months to get around to talking to his general about afganistan, which is pretty important. Where are his priorites and his loyalites for that matter?
PEACE PRIZE? I THINK NOT! He has done NOTHING abroad or at home to encourage peace of anykind. He talks one thing and does another so that makes him a liar too.
Peace price, ughh I am gonna be sick.
He spent more kissing behinds of our enemies such as Iran and North Korea,to lesser extent even France. He spent so much time,in fact that it took him months to get around to talking to his general about afganistan, which is pretty important. Where are his priorites and his loyalites for that matter?
PEACE PRIZE? I THINK NOT! He has done NOTHING abroad or at home to encourage peace of anykind. He talks one thing and does another so that makes him a liar too.
Peace price, ughh I am gonna be sick.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Politics Of Health Care Legislation Endanger Constitutional Liberties
Politics Of Health Care Legislation Endanger Constitutional Liberties
By ORRIN G. HATCH
The health care bills moving through Congress raise a host of contentious policy issues. But provisions in the bill before the Senate Finance Committee also test whether politics trumps the Constitution.
The liberty we enjoy in America requires limits on government power, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Our written Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal government and Congress must point to at least one of them as authority to pass legislation.
This means, of course, that the Constitution might not allow some things Congress might want to do. Some provisions of the Finance Committee's health care bill are in this category. It would, for example, require nearly everyone to purchase health care insurance. Failure to do so could result in an "excise tax" to be assessed through the tax code and collected by the IRS.
The only conceivable constitutional basis for this mandate is Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. To most people, "commerce" involves such things as trade and economic transactions. But the Supreme Court has broadened Congress' power to include regulating activities that substantially affect commerce, including noncommercial and even intrastate activities.
But the one constant has always been that the power to regulate commerce allows Congress to govern activities in which individuals choose to engage. The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance is something else entirely.For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase. Rather than regulate an activity in which individuals chose to engage, Congress would be requiring an activity in which individuals had chosen not to engage.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report concluding this is a completely novel, unprecedented constitutional issue.
This crosses a proverbial constitutional Rubicon. If Congress can order Americans to buy certain products, why did it bother with a Cash for Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances? Congress could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, refrigerators or dishwashers.
Come to think of it, we could tackle the obesity problem by requiring Americans to buy fruits and vegetables. And there apparently was no need for the stimulus and TARP programs, since Congress could just order Americans to buy certain stocks, perhaps even deposit their paycheck in certain banks.
Cutting individual freedom of choice out of the equation would be a big relief for the federal government.
This is not at all like the requirement to buy car insurance. That comes from the states, which can do many things the feds may not. But the states require car insurance only as a condition for the privilege of driving a car. Under the Finance Committee bill, however, individuals must buy health insurance whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation. Even if they sit home and do nothing at all.
Another constitutional problem with the individual mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is, in fact, not the excise tax that the Finance Committee bill says it is. It is really not a tax at all, but a fine masquerading as a tax. An excise tax is a tax on the sale of goods or services, such as a gasoline tax. If you do not buy gas, however, you do not pay the gas tax.
The so-called "tax" imposed upon people who fail to buy health insurance, however, is the exact opposite. It applies not when there's been a transaction, but when there's been no transaction. If it is a tax at all, it is a direct tax imposed upon people rather than an excise tax imposed upon their purchases.
This matters because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population. America's founders were especially concerned to limit the federal government's power of direct taxation, and it took the 16th Amendment to allow Congress to impose a federal income tax without that apportionment requirement.
As an analysis published in the BNA Daily Tax Report recently confirmed, the penalty imposed upon those who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution.
Another provision of the Finance Committee bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in 17 unnamed states. Just as the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned, it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States."
A tax is uniform if it has the same force and effect wherever the subject of the tax is found. If the excise tax is the solution to the problem of high-premium insurance plans, then a tax that varies from state to state can hardly be called uniform throughout the country. Congress may no more do this than it could impose a cigarette tax in New York but not in Florida.
It is tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty.
The best test of a fundamental principle is when we have to apply it to ourselves. Americans are watching to see whether Congress passes this test.
• Hatch, Utah Republican, is a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee.
By ORRIN G. HATCH
The health care bills moving through Congress raise a host of contentious policy issues. But provisions in the bill before the Senate Finance Committee also test whether politics trumps the Constitution.
The liberty we enjoy in America requires limits on government power, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Our written Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal government and Congress must point to at least one of them as authority to pass legislation.
This means, of course, that the Constitution might not allow some things Congress might want to do. Some provisions of the Finance Committee's health care bill are in this category. It would, for example, require nearly everyone to purchase health care insurance. Failure to do so could result in an "excise tax" to be assessed through the tax code and collected by the IRS.
The only conceivable constitutional basis for this mandate is Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. To most people, "commerce" involves such things as trade and economic transactions. But the Supreme Court has broadened Congress' power to include regulating activities that substantially affect commerce, including noncommercial and even intrastate activities.
But the one constant has always been that the power to regulate commerce allows Congress to govern activities in which individuals choose to engage. The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance is something else entirely.For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a particular product or service they had not chosen to purchase. Rather than regulate an activity in which individuals chose to engage, Congress would be requiring an activity in which individuals had chosen not to engage.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report concluding this is a completely novel, unprecedented constitutional issue.
This crosses a proverbial constitutional Rubicon. If Congress can order Americans to buy certain products, why did it bother with a Cash for Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances? Congress could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, refrigerators or dishwashers.
Come to think of it, we could tackle the obesity problem by requiring Americans to buy fruits and vegetables. And there apparently was no need for the stimulus and TARP programs, since Congress could just order Americans to buy certain stocks, perhaps even deposit their paycheck in certain banks.
Cutting individual freedom of choice out of the equation would be a big relief for the federal government.
This is not at all like the requirement to buy car insurance. That comes from the states, which can do many things the feds may not. But the states require car insurance only as a condition for the privilege of driving a car. Under the Finance Committee bill, however, individuals must buy health insurance whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation. Even if they sit home and do nothing at all.
Another constitutional problem with the individual mandate is that the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance is, in fact, not the excise tax that the Finance Committee bill says it is. It is really not a tax at all, but a fine masquerading as a tax. An excise tax is a tax on the sale of goods or services, such as a gasoline tax. If you do not buy gas, however, you do not pay the gas tax.
The so-called "tax" imposed upon people who fail to buy health insurance, however, is the exact opposite. It applies not when there's been a transaction, but when there's been no transaction. If it is a tax at all, it is a direct tax imposed upon people rather than an excise tax imposed upon their purchases.
This matters because the Constitution requires that a direct tax be apportioned among the states based on population. America's founders were especially concerned to limit the federal government's power of direct taxation, and it took the 16th Amendment to allow Congress to impose a federal income tax without that apportionment requirement.
As an analysis published in the BNA Daily Tax Report recently confirmed, the penalty imposed upon those who don't buy health insurance would be an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution.
Another provision of the Finance Committee bill would impose an excise tax on the sale of high-premium insurance plans and provide relief from that tax for insurers in 17 unnamed states. Just as the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned, it requires that excise taxes be "uniform throughout the United States."
A tax is uniform if it has the same force and effect wherever the subject of the tax is found. If the excise tax is the solution to the problem of high-premium insurance plans, then a tax that varies from state to state can hardly be called uniform throughout the country. Congress may no more do this than it could impose a cigarette tax in New York but not in Florida.
It is tempting to brush the Constitution aside to pursue political objectives, to let the ends justify the means. But if politics trumps the Constitution, the Constitution cannot limit government and, therefore, cannot protect liberty.
The best test of a fundamental principle is when we have to apply it to ourselves. Americans are watching to see whether Congress passes this test.
• Hatch, Utah Republican, is a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The 9 principles and 12 values we should all try to live by. Not written by me, but well said by who did.
9 12 Project
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
The Twelve Values
1-Honesty
2-Reverence
3-Hope
4-Thrift
5-Humility
6-Charity
7-Sincerity 8-Moderation
9-Hard Work
10-Courage
11-Personal Responsibility
12-Gratitude
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
The Twelve Values
1-Honesty
2-Reverence
3-Hope
4-Thrift
5-Humility
6-Charity
7-Sincerity 8-Moderation
9-Hard Work
10-Courage
11-Personal Responsibility
12-Gratitude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
