Monday, December 28, 2009
He believes that it's better to bury your kids than their attacker. He thinks schools shouldn't evacuate during a shooting because it unfairly rewards children who are resourceful enough to get out of dodge.
The logic in his thinking (and many of his commenters) fails me, perhaps because it doesn't exist. Surely he has no real moral compass.
Hat Tip War on Guns
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Three minutes later, I'm telling the story to them as we walk out the door and I point to the tree the squirrel went up. Just then I look up and see a hawk leaving the treetop with something in its talons. Yep, you guessed it, a squirrel.
That'll learn him.
"I'm not sure you can even call that dancing. It's more like synchronized seizures."
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
John 3:20 - For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
- Without this bill, healthcare premiums will be driven up
- Without this bill, unemployment will go up
- Without this bill, companies will drop benefits
- Without this bill, the federal government will go bankrupt
- some other bs I don't remember - it was 4 hours ago and I didn't take notes.
I much prefer the soap box and the ballot box to the final option for redress of grievances, the cartridge box.
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office about H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.
I share your concerns about the bill and assure you that I will not vote for it if it is even close to its present form when it comes before the Senate for a final vote. I believe all Americans should have the opportunity to be able to purchase affordable, private, quality health care coverage and have presented several reforms to achieve that goal. However, among many other significant problems, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would take money away from Medicare, which is predicted to be insolvent by 2017, and leverage it to create a new Tennessee as well as other states. H.R. 3590 uses typical Washington budget gimmickry, taking ten years of new taxes to finance six years of spending rather than using it to make Medicare more solvent. The bill also expands Medicaid and sends the cost to states, a huge that creates a very painful situation for , resulting in huge deficits in the next decades. In addition, studies are showing that Tennesseans who have health insurance will see their costs rise dramatically as a result of this bill.
Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me.
United States Senator
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
, D-N.Y., called it "an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me who have been arguing for a single-payer system."
, D-Nev., described the agreement as a significant step in the struggle to round up the votes needed to pass the broader overhaul legislation. The House has already passed its version, and Democrats are driving for a Senate vote before Christmas.
That would leave only a final compromise between the houses before legislation could go to Obama for his signature.
Joe Lieberman, one of the last holdouts based on the subject of a public option, looks like he could go for the bill now.
It adds more regulation on industry:
Insurance companies would be required to spend 90 percent of their income from premiums on providing benefits.
Many officials declined to discuss details, heeding an admonition that if they did, thewould feel compelled to release preliminary cost estimates that lawmakers prefer to receive secretly.
, R-Maine, told reporters premiums would total about $7,600 annually until federal subsidies became available in 2014. That translated into more than $600 a month, far higher than the $96.40 paid by beneficiaries age 65 and up.
sent notices to lawmakers criticizing the emerging plan. Expanding Medicare to individuals 55 to 64 years old, it said, "would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country."
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
William S. Lind is reported to have said: "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.” Lind goes on to say that American citizens are "afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic." He says that such changes can be attributed to the influence of cultural Marxists.My emphasis in bold. Hence, why I do not play the PC game.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
2. Recognizing that the right to development is a basic human right that is undeprivable. (p58)
3. Recalling that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first andoverriding priorities of the developing countries. (p58)
1. Recognizing the special difficulties of those countries, especially developing countries, whoseeconomies are particularly dependent on fossil fuel production, use and exportation, as a consequence ofaction taken on limiting greenhouse gas emissions,2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those thatare particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especiallydeveloping country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under theConvention, should be given full consideration. 23. There is a need to undertake a global transition to a low-emission economy in order to tackleclimate change. Although this transition presents a major opportunity for all countries to follow a cleandevelopment path, it can also pose challenges for all Parties, in particular the most vulnerable countries.Parties should work together to ensure that this transition is congruent with sustainable developmentprocesses in all countries.4. The difficulties of assessing the complex issue of potential impacts of policies are compoundedby the fact that some of these impacts are unintended and often unanticipated. Wider economic andpolitical factors can play a role in the vulnerability of socio-economic sectors and can amplify ordiminish the impacts of policies.
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressedby proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economicdiversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries,paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developingcountry Parties.]Alternative to paragraph 16:[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means,including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding,insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affectedcountries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storagetechnologies.]17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [AllParties] [shall] [should]:](a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lostopportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmentalrefugees;(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated forenvironmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of responsemeasures. (p122)19. [The permanent [forum] should also formulate/implement a work programme that [includes][addresses inter alia] the following components:](a) [Insurance and financial risk management;](b) [Modelling, analytical and methodological tools;](c) [Economic diversification;](d) Early warning and systematic observation;(e) Disaster management and preparedness;(f) Compensation procedures and actions including funds;(g) Funding;(h) Other related matters.](p123)
2. Objective and scope6. The provision of financial resources shall be guided by the principles of [SOCIALISM]the Convention and thepriorities of developing country Parties, and arrangements shall be made for financial resources to bemade available to enable developing country Parties, especially those particularly vulnerable to theadverse impacts of climate change, to take nationally appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions, inthe context of sustainable development priorities.7. The objective of the provision of financial resources is to promote equity and justice throughfurther enhancement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and the BaliAction Plan, so that the ultimate objective of the Convention can be achieved.8. Parties agree to establish, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, the FinancialMechanism of the Convention with a structure that meets the specific requirements laid down underArticles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Convention. The Financial Mechanism shall enable, enhance and supportmitigation and adaptation actions by developing country Parties to meet the objective(s) in accordancewith Article 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Convention through the provision of financial resources to meet theagreed full incremental costs of such actions, including the full cost of adaptation activities, technologytransfer and capacity-building.(p126)
- John F. Kennedy, 1962
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Mr. Matthews,Doubt if the point will get across, but I'm past the point of sitting idly by . . .
I would like to offer you some encouragements as far as your "investigative journalism" goes.
In your October 20 segment on Oath Keepers, your bias showed through as clearly as day. Your questions to Stewart Rhodes were not really questions, but pre-formulated statements in question form. You constantly referred to the Oath Keepers as "armed people" and even called them "vigilantes". When Rhodes tried to answer your questions, you constantly interrupted, then went on to ask him the same questions over and over again, because you didn't want the answers he was giving you. You wanted the answers you had already formulated in your mind. However, when you allowed Mark Potok to answer, you did not interrupt him, but let him speak freely except for, I believe, one time.
You did not challenge Potok when he said that the SPLC does not lump Oath Keepers together with white supremacists. Indeed, research the SPLC web sight, and you will find such insinuations. Besides that, the title given to the segment states that the SPLC has Oath Keepers in a blog called "Hatewatch". Proper research and understanding of Oath Keepers and their underlying principles would prove to you that they are not about hate at all.
Now, on to some of your questions for Stewart Rhodes and the answers.
You asked about the firepower to repel the government. Rhodes answered that it's not about firepower, it's about not following orders. Oath keepers is about standing down when unconstitutional orders are given, not fighting.
You asked why he is trying to recruit law enforcement and military, who are "all armed". He said it is because these are the people who will be given the unconstitutional orders. I would like to venture a couple of other thoughts. Number one, you need to stop complaining about these people being armed, because you pay them to protect you and defend your liberties. Another consideration as to why it is these people who are recruited is that these are the ones who took the oath to defend the . Hence the name "Oath Keepers".
You stated that you don't care about the philosophy, you just don't like the idea of these people being armed. See above answer and again remember what Rhodes said; this is not about fighting, it is about non-compliance. Nor is it a "war footing" as you called it.
You accuse Rhodes of creating a mindset. This point I will concede, though I disagree with you as to what mindset he is creating. He is trying to create a mindset of awareness of the Constitution and its provisions, as well as a mindset to resist any orders which are against the Constitution.
Mark Potok made a comment about Oath Keepers being paranoid about militias and the like being labeled as right-wing terrorists. This is not paranoia. The Department of Homeland Security has already issued a document containing such statements. Again, you did not challenge Potok.
You constantly ignored Stewart Rhodes' references to history. If it has happened before, it can happen again. Perhaps you should go take a few more history classes.
You continued during the entire discourse to come back to the idea of armed people. You seem to be a bit paranoid yourself. You forget that it has always been armed people who have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say whatever you want. Some of those people defied the government (think ). Without them doing so, you would not be able to spout such lies and bias as you currently do. You forget that those of us who are legally armed are the most law-abiding citizens, and that there are nearly 100million of us currently. One third of the population.
Perhaps if you would study history and facts altogether, you would be able to do true investigative journalism instead of simply spouting off liberal, bedwetting, liberal lapdog hysterics. Be willing to have your ideas challenged. Grow some balls and act like a real man.