A friend sent me the link to the following video. It would be funny if it weren’t so true.
Well, who’d a thunk it? Here we are, about 5 months from the Tampa convention, and we still don’t have a candidate. As I’ve stated in the past, I really like Gingrich if he can get past his ancient baggage. Well, Romney’s Super PAC made sure that wasn’t going to happen, so Newt might be done… especially after winning neither Alabama or Mississippi. Ron Paul? Puhleeze. As much as I like some libertarian views, this guy is so far out in left field, you can’t see him. He should just go back to the House and vote NO on everything. Apparently, his TX constituents like that, because they have been reelecting him for years.
That leaves us with Romney and Santorum. Ya know, at one time I considered Santorum a semi-viable candidate… until he started playing the ultra Right Wing candidate from Hell. What he is, is the mirror image of Obama. First he was gonna repeal ObamaCare. In and of itself, a good idea. Then he started talking about working to get Roe v. Wade repealed. Not a smart move for a candidate that wants to appeal to most women. Now, he’s on the “Santorum To Stomp Out Porn” campaign.
Let’s talk seriously: I am not pro-abortion… especially as a form of birth control. However, I am in favor of it being the woman’s call. The decision to have in abortion is between her, her physician and her God… not necessarily in that order. It’s nobody else’s business. Not yours, not mine, and most certainly not the Government’s. Santorum would do well to get off the Roe v. Wade kick.
Moving on to his views on pornography: If elected, Rick Santorum has promised to crack down on the distribution of explicit porn. Well, isn’t that just great! Let’s ignore the economy, the Fed’s monetary policy, unemployment, Congress’ ineptitude and go after an industry that actually employs people and really doesn’t hurt anybody. As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems “obscene.” Santorum, however, has yet to provide a specific definition of what kind of pornography his attorney general would prosecute.
Look, I’m not a porn junkie, and I don’t care if you are. Watch all the porn you want… just keep it away from kids. What Santorum is proposing is just another form of Big Government… Government intruding on your life and telling you how you should live it… just like Obama.
All of a sudden, our choice of a suitable President is looking more clear. Put another way, perhaps our choices of who is NOT a suitable candidate is becoming more clear. Senator, if you want me to even consider voting for you, you need to BACK OFF some of the social issues, and focus on what’s really important: The Debt, the economy and the balance of trade, to name a few. Stop pandering to your ultra right wing base (sound familiar?), and get back to the issues that affect all of us… or you’ll not only NOT get my vote in CA’s June primary… you might not get it in November if you’re the Republican candidate. I don’t want Obama out bad enough to vote for a potential Facist replacement.]]>
Our less-than-illustrious Prezident Obama managed to do a little stumping on this election day during a visit to Michigan by telling voters there that Republican candidate Mitt Romney was shoveling a “load of you-know-what” in his 2008 NY Time op-ed criticizing the auto industry bailouts..
If you all remember, a UAW-owned trust was given a 17.5% ownership stake in GM as part of the bailout, while bondholders were left with nothing to show for their investment in the auto giant.
Prezident Obama went on to reject assertions that he was (and still is) pandering to special interests in his support of labor unions.
I have news for you, Mr. Prezident: If it can contribute to a political candidate’s campaign, but it cannot cast a vote, IT IS A SPECIAL INTEREST!
I urge you all to help put this socialist oath-breaking criminal back on the street this November. It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put on the ballot. Any of the Republican candidates would be better than 4 more years of this guy.
Well, he’s gone and done it. Our hippie governor, Jerry Brown… you know, he of the “I have 3 guns and 1 dog” statement to to a roomful of cops, has just signed a bill into law (California AB 144) that makes it illegal “to carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle”. Violators face up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on January 1, 2012.
An excerpt of AB 144: “The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person or openly and exposed in a motor vehicle in specified public areas and would make it a misdemeanor with specified penalties to openly carry an exposed handgun in a public place or public street, as specified, if the person at the same time possesses ammunition capable of being discharged from the handgun, and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun, as specified.”
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as ratified by the States says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [emphasis mine].
So, I can’t carry a handgun on my hip… even an unloaded one. I can’t have an unloaded handgun in my vehicle, if that weapon can be seen from outside the vehicle. This begs the question, when and where may I bear arms? If I am out in the back country target shooting, or practicing shooting on the move, am I in violation of the law if I carry my (un)loaded handgun in a holster on my hip?
Jerry, you’ve gone way too far on this one. If the courts don’t strike this down as unconstitutional, me and my 401(k) are out of here. As much as I love California, it’s moronic (and hypocritical) Governor and all the Left Wing Loon Legislators can kiss my rebel ass. Go ahead and hand the State over to all the folks on the dole and the illegal aliens. You won’t have my tax money to piss away anymore.]]>
I was watching the news this afternoon, where it was revealed that OnStar Corporation continues to gather data from any vehicle in which it has been installed, even though the vehicle’s owner has discontinued their subscription to the service.
OnStar provides subscription-based communications, in-vehicle security, hands free calling, turn-by-turn navigation, and remote diagnostics systems throughout the United States, Canada and China. A similar service is known as ChevyStar in Latin American markets. The service currently has more than five million customers. OnStar Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors, which is owned 27% by the U.S. government and 12% by the Canadian government.
Apparently, even though your subscription may expire, or you discontinue the service, you must Opt-Out of any data collection as a separate action. As OnStar is partially owned by two governments (see above), this looks like a Big Brother scenario waiting to happen.
My advice? If you value your privacy, don’t just Opt-Out of OnStar’s data collection if/when you discontinue service. Take your car to the nearest dealer, and have the OnStar system completely disconnected from any power source and its antenna.
Just my 2¢.]]>
I was reading the news today about how the House rejected a measure which would provide up to $3.7 billion in disaster relief as part of a bill to prevent a government shutdown at the end of next week. According to the AP:
“The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.
Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.
The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn’t shut down on Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It also raises the possibility that the government’s main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.”
I don’t think anybody disagrees that FEMA needs the funding, and that we need to help those who suffer when a natural disaster strikes. What disturbs me is the continuation of business as usual in Congress where they refuse to pay for their expenditures out of cash on hand. Last time I looked, it was a company’s responsibility to fund its own R&D. If it needed a loan, it would go to its bank and get one. If it was a small business, they could go to the SBA (a worse paper chase does not exist in this country… they make it so you just want to tell them to kiss your ass and walk away).
However, a publicly held company shouldn’t be able to go to the Feds to get a loan guarantee for R&D, no matter the project’s goal, which in this case is development of fuel efficient vehicles. Riddle me this: Why are the Dems in such lockstep over the availability of Federal guarantees for this R&D? Think about it. The Dems must have something to gain by guaranteeing these loans. What might that be?
So, do you want to fix the problems in DC? The solution is very simple, you know… and here it is, step by step:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President’s term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms).
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote).
Create a new Constitutional Amendment (we’ll call it the Term Limits Amendment for now) that incorporates the text of the 22nd Amendment, plus the following text:
No person may serve more than twelve (12) years in Congress. If a person has been appointed to fill a vacant Congressional seat by their state’s Governor or by special election, he or she can be elected to terms totaling 12 years in addition to the time served filling the vacancy.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the legislatures thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the legislatures of such State shall elect a replacement to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the legislature fills the vacancies by election.
Congress shall make no law that affects The People that does not apply to the members thereof.
There you have it. So, what have we done here? First, we have eliminated the career politician at the Federal level. Nobody spend more than 12 years in Congress… period.
We have also helped undo the partisan politics inherent in having members of the Senate elected by the general population of each State. Our Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives as The People’s House, whereby those serving in The House were looking out for The People’s best interests. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the States, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.
Though some will claim otherwise, the 17th amendments was a pure power play designed to further entrench party politics in DC. Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way Senators are elected, the States lost any representation they had in the Federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of State legislatures, as well as an overextension of Federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by State legislatures. In my opinion, these critics were correct in their assessment, and it is time to go back to doing things the way our Founding Fathers intended they be done.
We have also eliminated loopholes such as those created by ObamaCare when Congress was able to exempt themselves from it. If a law is good enough for The People to be subject to its statutes, it’s good enough for the members of Congress to be subject to it, as well.
It is pretty clear there is no way Congress will author an Amendment that will limit their term of service to 12 years. After all, it’s not in their best interest. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the States cannot limit the terms of their representatives to Congress. So, the only way left for We The People to regain control of our Government is to take matters into our own hands, and push for a Constitutional Amendment ourselves. I will be discussing how we can do that in another article.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. I welcome your comments.]]>
President Obama’s huge drop in popularity is clearly evident in a plethora of new bumper stickers found across the country. A few of these are shown below:
It’s too bad the President and Congress don’t. Please take 5-1/2 minutes, and watch the video below. Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to enter your answer to the new poll in the right margin.]]>
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”
I wish I knew who coined this, because it strikes a chord in my soul and I would like to give them credit.
That’s right… it could happen.
According to the AP, the thirteen mostly conservative California counties would break away to create a 51st state known as South California under a proposal by Republican Jeff Stone of the Riverside County (where I live) Board of Supervisors. Apparently Stone asked fellow members of the Board to support a motion to bring together officials from the 13 counties to discuss the idea. A vote is scheduled for Tuesday.
Stone says California is too big to govern, which has led the state to raid local government coffers because of runaway spending.
Stone’s version of South California would not include Los Angeles County. Rather, it would encompass coastal Orange and San Diego counties, and inland Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino and Tulare counties. It would have a part-time Legislature and no term limits.
Know what? I’m all for it!! What do you think?]]>