Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

One Chance Only

Here in Florida, during our election process; Our Governor Charlie Crist decided he wanted to be our Senator, when Senator Martinez stepped down. His first step towards this process was to appoint someone who had no aspirations to hold on to it.... in other words someone to keep it warm for him (I'm surprised he just didn't appoint himself to the position). This made it so Charlie wouldn't have to run against an incumbent. Then our RINO (Republican In Name Only) Governor, announced his candidacy for the Senate seat. However, a young upstart by the name of Marco Rubio (keep your eye on him), announced his candidacy. During the primary Marco handed Charlie a sound defeat. Now here is where my problem is Charlie, announced he was running for Senator as an independent. Now he has already run as a Republican and lost, and he wants another chance? This is wrong, If someone runs for office and his own party doesn't want him that should be it. If he wants to run again, he must wait until the next election, The story has a happy ending as far as I am concerned. Marco beat Crist, and even if Crist received all the votes the Democrat candidate did, Marco would have still won, since Marco pulled in a majority vote (over 50%). Of course all this would be a moot point if my idea of a general primary where every candidate ran and the top two were our choices during the general election. By the way I am still advocating the number two man (or woman) becomes the Lt Governor, and that they both act not only as Governor and Lt Governor, but as the State's two Senators.

Owe Taxes? No Government Job!

According to an article written in the LA Times on September 10th 2010; 41 "Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone. We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9.3 million in back taxes. Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Dept. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733. Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes. Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a brave Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants. Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174."

According to ABC News: "Currently, only IRS employees can be terminated for non-payment of federal income taxes -- a measure Chaffetz wants extended to all federal agencies. The IRS has the lowest level of tax delinquency among its employees than at any other federal agencies, according to the most recent statistics."

This is unreal! and it is a slap in the face of all Americans. Our taxes pay their wages! If they are not going to pay their taxes, they should not be eligible to hold those positions. Elected officials should be ineligible to run or hold office if they cannot pay their fair share. How can they expect us to pay our taxes (the ones they raise all too often) if they don't pay theirs.

Anyone who runs for office, should be audited by the IRS. Their records for the past 10 years should be released for public scrutiny. If they are found to be delinquent, then they will not be placed on the ballot. Anyone already in office found to be delinquent on their taxes (and do not bring their account current within 6 months), will be removed from office; then they will be ineligible to run again.

Anyone who applies for a government job (or appointed to a government position), will have an IRS background check added to their list of qualifying standards. If they are found to be delinquent on their taxes, they will be removed for consideration for any government position. If they are already employed by the government and found to be delinquent on their taxes (and do not bring their account current within 12 months), they will be removed from their position and marked ineligible for rehire.

Government, should set the standard. That's The Way It Should Be.

South Fulton FD Refuses to Put Fire Out
A family is left without a home and with 3 dead dogs and a dead cat, after the South Fulton Tennessee fire department refused to put their house fire out since the family did’t pay a $75 fee to warrant their services.
The Cranick family, who lives in Obion County, next to South Fulton forgot to pay a $75 yearly fee for for fire service. Obion County does not have a county wide service, so they rely on South Fulton’s fire department to respond to any fires, but only if the homeowners pay a $75 fee each and every year. The Cranick family forgot to pay the fee, so the fire department refused to respond to the emergency call.
The fire department eventually showed up, but only to put out the fire that had spread to the neighbor’s yard, watching the Cranick’s house burned to the ground. “They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn,” said Gene Cranick.

ARE WE KIDDING??? No, I am afraid not. This actually happened or didn't happen. Were I a federal prosecutor, I would bring the fire chief up on charges under the Rico act. Who runs the South Fulton Fire Department anyway? the Mob? the Mafia?, or the Cosa Nostra? These arrogant thugs have tarnished the brilliant reputation of firefighters everywhere. They might as well quit their jobs as firefighters, and take up careers more suited to their demeanor, becoming Lawyers, used car salesmen, or loan sharks (if those professions will have them).

First of all, the way it should be, is when someone doesn't choose to pay the fire response fee, and they have a fire, they get charged the entire cost of the fire department responding (gas, wages, etc.....). The fact that they stood around tells me they were intimidating the family.

What is next, Police allowing criminals to assault, or kill you, if you haven't paid them in advance?

Before and After

It is said the office of the presidency ages a man these pictures prove it....
My question is "How stressful could the job be if it affords a man 7 vacations in two years?" but, then again maybe that is what is aging him....

Ground Zero Mosque?

No, and not because I am against Muslims. Just as I would disagree with the Klan erect an eternal flaming cross, outside the hotel where Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Mr President can you honestly say that the Klan has the right do so, as you have said it would be appropriate to place an Islamic center, so close to ground zero? What would be the difference? It is one thing, to place a mosque anywhere, in the United States, as they have. But to place one so close to such a location as ground zero.... Consider this many of the foriegn countries who are actually financing this mosque, will not allow a Christian Church, or Jewish Synagogue to be erected on their soil. Again, I say no, No to placing a mosque in such a location, for which the sole purpose is to thumb their noses at us. Would we have placed a monument to the Enola Gay, and her crew in Hiroshima? Or a muesuem dedicated to the B-17 Flying Fortresses of WWII in Dresdan Germany? Should we allow a mosque near ground zero? I don't think so, for the same reason I wouldn't wear a Oakland Raiders jersey at Foxboro station, unless I wanted someone taking potshots at me. Maybe that is what they want.

Right of Last Respects

When you have fringe radical jerks (sorry for that kind of language, but that is just what they are), who come out to protest against America at Military Funerals. Something has to be done. The portion of the first amendment that guarantees free speech, does not in spirit give someone the right to disrespect another human life in such a solemn occasion as a private funeral. The disgraceful actions by Fred Phelps (I will not give this person any credence by referring to him in any way as a man of God) of the Topeka Kansas Westboro Baptist Church. Who uses Military funerals as a spring board for his anti-christian and anti-American stance. He uses the issue of Homosexuality to justify his hate mongering. He is not only Homophobic, Anti-American, Antisemitic and what I would add a False-Prophet (closer to Satanic than Christian). Church members, led by Phelps, believe God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Blew Up the Troops" and "AIDS Cures Fags." To make things worse the Judiciary has come to his aid, when Missouri, imposed tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals (Kudos to Missouri), the courts granted a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law until it could be challenged. (Sour Grapes to the Courts).
Phelps, his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The married Army Airborne Ranger died while on patrol in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee military vehicle. He was 21, and in addition to his wife, he left behind a daughter (I ask "what did this man have to do with homosexuality"). He was later buried at Leavenworth National Cemetery in Kansas. In response to that protest, Missouri lawmakers passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession.
The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."
Phelps obviously, has misinterpreted God's message, and in his own way ensuring God's wrath upon himself, as he preaches hatred not Love, Intolerance not tolerance. He does harm to Christianity by twisting the word of God into his own lawyer-istic perverted interpretation.
Sorry for that tangent, but, it is the above situation which spurred me on to put into word my two-cents worth. Every American has the right to peaceable assemble and protest, to say his piece, under the first amendment. However, every American is also granted his right to worship in his own way, and be protected from the prejudiced hate of others. Phelps exercising his right to free speech is infringing on the right of families exercising their freedom of religion. Yes funerals are a religious ceremony a way of mourning the passing of a loved one. When these hypocrites, come out from under the decaying filth of their own hatred strewn deficant, like cockroaches from under garbage (my apologies to the cockroaches), then they forfeit their right of free speech. What if it were the KKK protesting at Martin Luther King's funeral? Would the courts be so understanding? Does the liberal disregard of the contribution of the American Serviceman, justify the disrespect? I say once again every American deserves the right, to be buried in peace, at whatever cost, even the cost of curtailing the right of free speech, during that moment of silence in respect of an American Sacrifice.
Mr Phelps, may God have mercy on you. May he open your eyes to your misinterpretation of his word. May he fill you with the Love of your neighbor he spoke of in Matthew 22:34-40 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Mr Phelps, I recognize you from the Bible as well in Matthew 7:15 - 20 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mr Phelps, remember as Christ said in John 8:3-11 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” So I ask of you.... Since you are so ready to cast the first stone, are you saying you are without sin?
Mr Phelps, as far as your anti-semitism is concerned, remember Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Israel, David, John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, James, the rest of the apostles and even Jesus were Jews, and if you blame the Jews for his Crucifixion I ask you to remember what he said on the cross in Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.
Mr Phelps, you need to study your bible, the whole bible, and if you have missed these passages and the multitude like them, or if your bible does not include the new testament, I recommend you get a new one. Read it, and find within yourself the fault of your current path.
In Conclusion, I say every true American, has the right for that quantity of respect, needed to bury them in peace. At those times, our right to free speech, if not coupled with respect is forfeit.

3 Strikes And You're Out, Make It 2

Some states have a 3 Strikes and you're out law, Florida has the "Three-strike Violent Felony Offender Act" which puts violent offenders away permanently on their third offense. Plus "10, 20, Life" that puts violent offenders in jail for life when they use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Here's how it works 1) a mandated minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device 2) a mandated minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged 3) a mandated minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed 4) a mandated minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon and it is mandated that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed. This drove down Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30% by the year 2004. This should be expanded or shrunk down to two strikes for sex offenders. Also when someone is sentenced for a crime that sentence should be carried out. 25 years to life means 25 years to life, after 25 years then he could be up for parole, not after 8 years. Too often career criminals get off Scot free. If Judges can't be tough then mandatory sentencing laws must be. I am not saying that we need to get tough on victimless crimes. Non-violent and victimless crimes should not require prison or jail terms. Restrictions yes.... But, reserve the cells for the violent, and those who require separation from society. Drunk drivers who are habitual (more than 2 offenses), lose their driving privileges until they can prove they are completely off the bottle. Also we should apply the use of a car as a "Destructive Device" under the "10, 20, Life" statute; If their drunken driving impacts on innocent bystanders. It is also time for Driver's Licenses that are embedded with a chip that activates a motor vehicle allowing it to start. If the person has their license revoked the chip is deactivated preventing the vehicle from starting. If the driver is in possession of someone Else's license the owner of the active license better be able to prove the unlicensed driver took it without their knowledge. A side benefit would be family vehicles could be set up for only drivers the owner of the car has designated as authorized drivers.

Rerun Reaganism

History gives us an insight on, how long a recovery might take. Since World War II of the U.S economy has had only one increase in the employment-population ratio of five percentage points in a single decade: the recovery Ronald Reagan's fueled with his 1983 tax cuts.
The employment-population ratio recovered less than two years after hitting bottom, during the mid 80's. This generated a momentum that continued through the rest of the 80's, due to 1986 tax reform that reduced the top marginal income tax rate to 28%, this allowed America to employ the millions of women, baby boomers, and immigrants who were actively looking for jobs. At the end of the boom in 1990, the employment ratio increased from 57% to 63%.
An administration which pursues job creation — not ideology — would note this record and see how companies and individuals create wealth and jobs if they have the right incentives. Instead, the current Administration has policies that are muddied with ignorance and have bought into the notion that recovery can only happen with higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing consumers to restrain spending, and business to cut back production, reduce costs (i.e. lay off workers, middle managers, rely on part time workers, shift the cost of benefits onto the employees as well as cutting back the number of benefits) creating such a drag on the economy that even the government cannot reverse, even through the use of stimuli, that really shift the burden of the recovery onto the taxpayers who are making less and paying more to support proven the failure of socialist and communist regimes.
We have no time to waste. Rather than talk down Reaganism, the Politicians in Washington should heed its lessons and unleash the American Economy with a hands off approach that alone can put us back on track and prevent us from repeating the past of Carter or worse prevent us from reliving the great depression. Ronald Reagan while campaigning for office said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." it is time to edit this to "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid lose theirs"

Remarks by the President on Unemployment Insurance

Rose Garden 10:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Right now, across this country, many Americans are sitting at the kitchen table, they’re scanning the classifieds, they’re updating their resumes or sending out another job application, hoping that this time they’ll hear back from a potential employer. And they’re filled with a sense of uncertainty about where their next paycheck will come from. And I know the only thing that will entirely free them of those worries –- the only thing that will fully lift that sense of uncertainty –- is the security of a new job.

MY RESPONSE: That's right there are many Americans looking for a job, more than ever before, more than even during the Great Depression. In actual numbers not in percentage. But, still there are too many Americans out of work! Yes, they are uncertain about their futures, in a time where when you call your mortgage company to ask for a little more time to bring your payments up to date, and you hear a voice with an Indian or Pakistani accent and you know he is in some call center in New Delhi, or some other distant location. Knowing that the majority of Manufacturing jobs have left the country and are residing in Mexico, Indonesia, or Malaysia.

THE PRESIDENT: To that end, we all have to continue our efforts to do everything in our power to spur growth and hiring. And I hope the Senate acts this week on a package of tax cuts and expanded lending for small businesses, where most of America’s jobs are created.

MY RESPONSE: Spur the economy? you mean your stimulus packages that have sent billions of our money to 3rd world nations? Tax cuts? I thought you and your cronies said tax cuts were voo-doo economics? or is that only when Reagan or Bush asks for tax cuts? Maybe when you bailed out the big financial houses you could have used that leverage to cut the interest rates they charge the people who bore the burden of paying for their blunders. Do you even realize why most of America's jobs are created by small businesses? I'll tell you the big businesses are cutting back not expanding and as they cut back the nation falters even more. Your policies have crippled the Auto Industry. Your buddies who lined you campaign pockets with the dues of the unions, have attacked Detroit demanding even more benefits and more pay, for their rank and file who instead of seeing more jobs, see their jobs go overseas as the Nationally backed automakers in socialist Europe and Uber Capitalist Japan and South Korea.

THE PRESIDENT: So we've got a lot of work to do to make sure that we are digging ourselves out of this tough economic hole that we've been in. But even as we work to jump start job growth in the private sector, even as we work to get businesses hiring again, we also have another responsibility: to offer emergency assistance to people who desperately need it -- to Americans who have been laid off in this recession. We've got a responsibility to help them make ends meet and support their families even as they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: We? We can't dig out of a hole! when you dig in a hole one of two things happen, the hole gets deeper or just bigger. No wonder we in this mess, you idiots give us shovels when we need fill dirt. But, don't do us any favors there, with your track record we are likely to be buried. If you want to jump start job growth, scrap the IRS! replace it with a 10% National sales tax (exempting Food, Medical and the first $50,000 of home purchases or $500 of rent) take away the burden you and your past economic half wits have heaped upon us. Link tax revenue to spending not earning! Let every American take home his or her entire paycheck (including what our employers have to match) that would mean every American working would take home 30-40% more pay. Then all that extra money coming in means they would be spending it. Then a domino effect would drive the economy into hyperdrive. As spending increases, demand for goods increase, which means production increases, and finally jobs increase, which starts the cycle all over again. It is simple economics. By the way, really stimulate our economy bring back tariffs and make American made products more attractive.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s why it’s so essential to pass the unemployment insurance extension that comes up for a vote tomorrow. We need to pass it for men like Jim Chukalas, who’s with me here today. Jim worked as a parts manager at a Honda dealership until about two years ago. He’s posted resumes everywhere. He’s gone door-to-door looking for jobs. But he hasn’t gotten a single interview. He’s trying to be strong for his two young kids, but now that he’s exhausted his unemployment benefits, that’s getting harder to do.

MY RESPONSE: No, No, No! that is BS unadulterated BS! Has Jim applied at Wendy's? Burger King? Taco Bell? or is he too good to work fast food? They are always looking for good managers. He needs to show his kids the character in himself, that says I'll do whatever it takes to provide for my family. I will tell you why he didn't! those jobs made it more attractive to sit on his butt and collect a check larger than what they McDonald's will pay. Maybe now instead of waiting for someone else to help him, he'll help himself.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since. Because she’s eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she never thought she’d have to do -- not at this point, anyway. She’s turning to her father for financial support.

MY RESPONSE: What's wrong with families taking care of their own, they did it for years.... I have known people who consider it shameful to receive welfare. Not long ago (the 1950's) Indianapolis posted the names of those on welfare on billboards around that city, and the welfare roles decreased. We have made every attempt to remove the stigma of being supported by the government, we handed out Debit cards that look like credit cards to replace food stamps. Cashiers at grocery stores don't know the difference and let their customers buy alcohol and cigarettes with "MY" money. Then Medicare uses "MY" money to treat their over burdened Liver and smoke filled cancer ridden lungs. They eat steak, on "MY" money and you have taken so much of mine I eat hamburger and chicken.

THE PRESIDENT: And we need to pass it for Americans like Denise Gibson, who was laid off from a real estate agency earlier this year. Denise has been interviewing for jobs -– but so far nothing has turned up. Meanwhile, she’s fallen further and further behind on her rent. And with her unemployment benefits set to expire, she’s worried about what the future holds.

MY RESPONSE: Why was she laid off? Oh yeah, you and your cronies in Washington, created an environment where real estate values were over inflated. As you made it easier and easier for people who had no business buying houses they couldn't afford, buy bigger and better houses, hoping when the house of cards you created came crashing down. Then to make things worse, as the housing and finance industry faltered, someone had to pay and once again Washington reaches into the pockets of working Americans, decreasing our buying power, driving down demand, making production go down, causing industry to lay off workers or close shop and opening in other countries where minimum wage is less than $1.00 a day. causing the cycle to repeat and our country to get that closer to becoming a third world nation.

THE PRESIDENT: We need to pass it for all the Americans who haven’t been able to find work in an economy where there are five applicants for every opening; who need emergency relief to help them pay the rent and cover their utilities and put food on the table while they’re looking for another job.

MY RESPONSE: Look at your history, the fall of Rome, the fall of the Soviet Union had one common ideal "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And for a long time, there’s been a tradition –- under both Democratic and Republican Presidents –- to offer relief to the unemployed. That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits –- benefits that are often the person’s sole source of income while they’re looking for work -– are in jeopardy.

MY RESPONSE: "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

THE PRESIDENT: And I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help.

MY RESPONSE: Those tax breaks should affect all Americans, at the same rate. Under a national sales tax those who spend the most pay the most. Those who spend the majority of their income on food and shelter pay the least. The Rich who buy a $1,000,000.00 mansion will pay $95000 in taxes on that home the Poor who buy a $100,000 home will pay $5000 in taxes (1/20th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 10 times more expensive) and the family in rural Appalachia who buy a home for $50,500 will pay $50.00 (almost 1/100,000th of what the rich will pay for a mansion 20 times more expensive).

THE PRESIDENT: Over the past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried -– not once, not twice, but three times –- to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief. These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks.

MY RESPONSE: Again you want to give our money to other people so you look like the heroes. IT IS "NOT YOURS TO GIVE", IT IS OURS! (read Not Yours To Give by David Crockett in my Heroes and Roll Models blog) if you want to override the congressional vote, put it to us the American people let us vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT: That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings –- Americans like Leslie and Jim and Denise -- they’re not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now they can’t find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who’ve fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.

MY RESPONSE: If they don't want a handout, don't give it to them, if they want secure jobs, give it to them. This Economic Storm, is not a natural phenomenon, it is a Frankenstein Monster created by a collection of mostly Lawyers who can't speak English without twisting the meaning of words

THE PRESIDENT: Now, tomorrow we will have another chance to offer them that relief, to do right by not just Jim and Leslie and Denise, but all the Americans who need a helping hand right now -- and I hope we seize it. It’s time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics. It’s time to do what’s right -- not for the next election but for the middle class. We’ve got to stop blocking emergency relief for Americans who are out of work. We’ve got to extend unemployment insurance. We need to pass those tax cuts for small businesses and the lending for small businesses.

MY RESPONSE: I agree it is time to stop holding Americans hostage to Washington politics. It's time to hold Washington hostage to the American Voters. We don't need to give away money we don't have, we don't need to expand the deficit. We need to create jobs, and relieve the American Tax-payer of his Global Burden.

THE PRESIDENT: Times are hard right now. We are moving in the right direction. I know it’s getting close to an election, but there are times where you put elections aside. This is one of those times. And that’s what I hope members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will do tomorrow.

MY RESPONSE: We are moving in the wrong direction, we need to turn this contraption around and quit trying to dig our way out of a hole that eventually become so deep that the side collapse and bury us all.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks very much.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks very much. and remember "You cannot tax your way into prosperity"

Palestinian Situation

We hear the sound of our liberal brethren bemoan about the 711,000 Palestinians who 1) fled Israel or 2) were ejected from Israel; after Israel was created in 1948 by the Palestinian Mandate. As the region was divided by the British into two autonomous intertwined regions Israel and Palestine, the Arabic world decided to finish the job Hitler was unable to complete. That may sound harsh, but Saddam's own Ba'th party was deep into the hip pocket of the Nazi Regime. Also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter the "final solution". So when in 1948, when the Nation of Israel was formed in the council halls of the United Nations, the Arabic resistance was less than passioned, for they had their own "solution". The word was spread by the Arabic world extending a faint hand to the Palestinians, leave Israel for a short time, and they would restore the Palestinians to their homes once they were rid of the vermin Jew. At the same time the 711,000 Palestinians fled Israel, the Arabic world forced 850,000 Arabic Jews from their homes in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq and Yemen (In fact in several of these countries the Jewish population was established long before what has become today’s local population or over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam). These refugees were dumped into Israel, as their plan unfolded. Then when they thought the time was right, the combined Arabic world attacked Israel with the sole purpose of eliminating the Jewish people. The problem was, the Jews didn't roll over and play dead. Instead they fought back, leaving close to a million Palestinians homeless. Now we talk about them as victims, yet victim is hardly the word to describe them. Arafat the former savior of his people, wasn't even Palestinian, he was Egyptian. In my opinion if the Palestinians deserve a homeland it is up to the other Arabic nations to provide it to them, since they were the ones who orchestrated the refugee issue. The Jews were willing to create a country where Arab and Jew could live together in Harmony. They started their Zionist mission, by legally buying the land from the Arabs, which was taken away from them by the British, when the Arabs claim the Jews cheated them (even though the land was sold for 3-4 times it's value). So as far as I am concerned the Palestinians are along with their Arabic breathern are the authors of their fate and deserve nothing more than what Israel is willing to give them and or what their Arabic brothers will.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

The following is an excerpt from CBS News on-line
"The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights. By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges. Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states." The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority. Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home. That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans. Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment."

I appauld the 5 judges who know enough of Constitutional law to uphold the Constitution. the Second Amendment, was passed by the Congress, reads "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.". I stress the part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of that, needs interpetation? "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Must I define Infringed? infringe on or upon something compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, dimish, disrupt, or curb,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be compromised."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be undermined."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be weakened."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be dimished."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be disrupted."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be curbed."

Need I go on? Obviously there are 4 Supreme Court Justices who do not know their Constitution! There are 4 Justices who do not know how to read English! There are 4 Justices who want to erode our rights! Remember when they take away our right to own guns, only criminals will have guns!

American Spoken Here

It is said the United States does not have an official language, however, it is generally accepted that English fills that spot. Now when our founding fathers sat down to discuss this subject many of them were so disgusted with England, that they refused to make English the "Official" language. Had it not been for the fact that Hessian troops were in British employment, to fight against us, The German movement might have had a chance of holding that honor. Despite, the myth, that because of one pro-German advocate suffering from diarrhea, English became our "Official" language. A vote never occurred and we just accepted English as the common tongue. Truth be told we don't have an "Official" language, but, English is the language used in documenting our official records, and the majority (for now) of Americans speck English. We need to establish English as the official language or perhaps since we are so far out of step with our British brethren, American as our Official language (despite the slang connection there). What would this mean? To most of us not much, Citizenship for example would be linked to speaking the American language. Official documents would no longer need to be printed in bi-lingual type. In the past, the key to successful integration into our society was linked with shedding the mother tongue and learning the language of America. When everyone is on the same page, we can all read it. I have nothing against foreign languages, and I think it is great that our children can learn other languages (I took German in high school myself). We cannot put ourselves through what the Canadians have put themselves through being bi-lingual. I remember spending the fourth of July in 1990 in Quebec, and having a waitress refuse to speak English to us, which changed once one of the guys tried miserably to speak french (which he took in high school so many years earlier), his Alabama accent was enough for the waitress to realize he was American not Canadian (she then explained that she and her friends were mad that French Canadians had to speak English, even though English Canadians could get away with not learning French) Do we really want to have that issue face us? Language unites us many languages divide us. If we accept Spanish as a second language, do we accommodate Chinese American the same way? Portuguese? French? Russian? Japanese? Italian? Korean? (need I list every language?) So I say lets do what our founding fathers should have done and make it "Official", American should be our official language.

Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients!

Employers can weed out potential employees on the basis of mandatory Urinalysis testing. Why is it that welfare recipients are not required to be tested? In all seriousness, employers are allowed to refuse employment or even fire when positive results occur from mandatory or random drug testing. The US Military conducts both random and mandatory testing, which can be used to remove soldiers or sailors from the ranks. This should be Incorporated into the welfare system, If someone is sitting on the government payroll, receiving payments without working, why shouldn't they be required to provide samples to determine if they are wasting the monies we give them for subsidence on illegal activities. I would prefer to limit welfare funding to Rice and Beans (Refer back to an earlier posting ), than to do the drug testing, but as long as they have the opportunity to sell or trade off their benefits, we need to ensure that money is used properly. So That's my view, if I have to submit to drug testing to work they they should have to submit to receive the hard earned money I pay into the welfare program to support them.

Is Cash for Clunkers Stimulating our Economy? Or Bottlenecking Retail?

I live in Florida, where we just survived our bout with Obama's Transfer of wealth program called "Cash for Clunkers II, the Appliance Sequel". What a bust! If anything it hobbled the retailers. Working in the appliance retail industry, myself, I saw firsthand, how the Cash for clunker program suppressed sales in the days leading up the event people weren't going to buy if they could get a better deal later on, unless they had to); Then created a dam bursting effect during the two days that funding lasted. This was followed by a lull in purchases, afterwards due to out of stock situations at the Vendor level. At my store we saw an 18.5% loss in business up to the day prior the onset of "Cash for Clunkers", add in the next two days and we ended up with a 1% loss in sales over the previous year. You might say "well it was an increase so it must have worked!" This is what Democrats live for, the numbers do not lie they say, but, they do mislead. For example; In November of 2009 we ran a 20% increase in sales over the previous year (even with 2009 being a recession year) in December (the month the Cash for Clunkers program leaked out) we had an 20% loss in sales, In January we had a 16% loss of sales (as more people found out), February followed with a 25% loss, March showed a 21% loss, and the first part of April (the 1st through 15th the days prior to the Cash for Clunkers event) showed an 8% loss in sales. Now when you figure in the time frame from 12/01/2009 till 05/01/2010 and bounce it against the same time period 1 year ago you will see a 1% loss in sales. NO GROWTH! The Stimulus was a bust, at least in our store (makes you wonder how those numbers work throughout the state and the states which have already had their events, also what will be the effect in those states with upcoming events?). and when you look at the sales gain in November before the cash for clunkers info was released a 1% sales loss could have actually been as much as a 19% sales gain over the December/April time frame (had the trends continued on). This demonstrates that the government in order to increase sales actually created a bottleneck in the sales process, where the only sales being made were for products that did not qualify (Ranges, dryers, and microwaves; sales of which were also depressed because of people not understanding how the program worked) or for those products the consumer could not do without when their old unit failed (even then I personally sold inexpensive non energy star rated refrigerators that will make due until the event took place and will be relocated to the garage to serve as a beer frigs after their big fancy E-Star frig shows up). Then during the event, consumers found dwindling supplies that ran out or were backordered past the "have to have" date (May 10th which was recently extended to May 31st well after the event was over and that info is too late for consumers to take advantage of). Another matter is who paid for all of this? You and I did! That’s right, even if you didn’t purchase an appliance; you did $17,600,000 (in Florida alone) worth of appliances, since it was your tax dollars that funded the program. Now let me explain something more, this stimulus didn’t really help the lower or middle classes, not truly. There were those who were able to take advantage of the savings, but, for the most part the Upper Middle and Upper class were the major benefactors in this program. Just think the Lower class gets out of paying taxes, or even gets larger tax returns than their withholdings, and the Upper class has more write offs on their taxes, so what this did was transfer wealth from the middle class (who pays more taxes) to those who didn’t need it in the first place. There you have it a program designed to stimulate growth ended up retarding growth, increased the tax deficit, moved a lot of money around (and how much did the administration of that cost?) benefitted the wealthy, and finally make Obama and his Democrat cronies look like they did something good for the country… Talk about your smoke and mirrors!

Our Legislators Think We Pay Them By The Word.

All you have to do to believe this is look at the legislation they put forth. The bills they put before Congress tip the scales, to the point of the ridiculous. What does this mean? It means that 90% of the laws our congress votes on isn't even read before the vote. The "pork" is attached as riders on bills and never gets read. Many of the bills make "War and Peace" look like a pamphlet. There isn't a member of congress that reads these bills before they vote on them (could this be the reason our government is so out of control?). We need to make a law that no bill can go before congress that is 1) full of multiple subjects. 2) longer than 1 page. and 3) not in plain and simple English! We need to put an end to the massive verbiage that hides pork and corruption from the scrutiny of the American populous.

Roll Call

The 219-212 roll call Sunday by which the House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans.

Below are named the 219 traitors to our country, the "Representatives" who failed to "represent" their constituents and vote no. This action has demonstrated they do not believe in either a democracy nor a republic. Be wary the democratic party is attempting to nail the coffin lid on freedom. One step at a time, they raise the temperature of the water you are sitting in one degree at a time so eventually your frog is boiled, and you never even tried to jump out. If they had their way you would turn over all your hard earned money to them and they would spend it as they see fit, giving you only that amount they have to to ensure you stay quiet. But rest assured at that time, the gravy train will end for those collecting welfare and they will have to work doing what they (the politicians) tell us. Don't believe for a second, that socialism isn't communism, and communism doesn't want to control your every thought and move. Don't think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will be doling out the hard earned money, you have let them steal from you. They will keep it for themselves and enjoy their health care, the health care, you and I pay for, which is head and shoulders above what they want to give to you and I. Keep in mind you and I are going to see the effects of this traitorous action before 2011 and won't see the benefits (yeah right benefits) until 2014 (makes you wonder what will happen to all those collected taxes from 2011, 2012 and 2013). Maybe they just want us to believe that the new benefits will even happen. Just wait until we are waiting for routine medical care like they do in Canada, and the UK. Our health care system may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world. It is time to stand up and vote every one listed below out of office. replace them with people who will listen to the American citizenry and represent them. This is not a revolution! it is democracy, VOTE! VOTE VOTE! and make your vote count.

ARIZONA Democrats -- Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, Pastor

ARKANSAS Democrat Snyder

CALIFORNIA Democrats -- Baca, Becerra, Berman, Capps, Cardoza, Chu, Costa, Davis, Eshoo, Farr, Filner, Garamendi, Harman, Honda, Lee, Lofgren, Zoe, Matsui, McNerney, Miller, George, Napolitano, Pelosi, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Sanchez, Linda T., Sanchez, Loretta, Schiff, Sherman, Speier, Stark, Thompson, Waters, Watson, Waxman, Woolsey

COLORADO Democrats -- DeGette, Markey, Perlmutter, Polis, Salazar

CONNECTICUT Democrats -- Courtney, DeLauro, Himes, Larson, Murphy

FLORIDA Democrats -- Boyd, Corrine Brown, Castor, Grayson, Hastings, Klein, Kosmas, Meek, Wasserman Schultz

GEORGIA Democrats -- Bishop, Johnson, Lewis, Scott

HAWAII Democrats -- Hirono

ILLINOIS Democrats -- Bean, Costello, Davis, Foster, Gutierrez, Halvorson, Hare, Jackson, Quigley, Rush, Schakowsky

INDIANA Democrats -- Carson, Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill, Visclosky

IOWA Democrats -- Boswell, Braley, Loebsack

KANSAS Democrat -- Moore

KENTUCKY Democrat Yarmuth

MAINE Democrats -- Michaud, Pingree

MARYLAND Democrats -- Cummings, Edwards, Hoyer, Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, Van Hollen

MASSACHUSETTS Democrats -- Capuano, Delahunt, Frank, Markey, McGovern, Neal, Olver, Tierney, Tsongas

MICHIGAN Democrats -- Conyers, Dingell, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Levin, Peters, Schauer, Stupak

MINNESOTA Democrats -- Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Walz

MISSISSIPPI Democrat Thompson

MISSOURI Democrats -- Carnahan, Clay, Cleaver,

NEVADA Democrats -- Berkley, Titus

NEW HAMPSHIRE Democrats -- Hodes, Shea-Porter

NEW JERSEY Democrats -- Andrews, Holt, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, Rothman, Sires

NEW MEXICO Democrats -- Heinrich, Lujan,

NEW YORK Democrats -- Ackerman, Bishop, Clarke, Crowley, Engel, Hall, Higgins, Hinchey, Israel, Lowey, Maffei, Maloney, McCarthy, McMahon, N; Meeks, Murphy, Nadler, Owens, Rangel, Serrano, Slaughter, Tonko, Towns, Velazquez, Weiner

NORTH CAROLINA Democrats -- Butterfield, Etheridge, Miller, Price, Watt

NORTH DAKOTA Democrat Pomeroy

OHIO Democrats -- Boccieri, Driehaus, Fudge, Kaptur, Kilroy, Kucinich, Ryan, Sutton, Wilson

OREGON Democrats -- Blumenauer, DeFazio, Schrader, Wu

PENNSYLVANIA Democrats -- Brady, Carney, Dahlkemper, Doyle, Fattah, Kanjorski, Murphy, Patrick, Schwartz, Sestak,

RHODE ISLAND Democrats -- Kennedy, Langevin,

SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats -- Clyburn, Spratt,

TENNESSEE Democrats -- Cohen, Cooper, Gordon,

TEXAS Democrats -- Cuellar, Doggett, Gonzalez, Green, Al, Green, Gene, Hinojosa, Jackson Lee, Johnson, E. B., Ortiz, Reyes, Rodriguez,

VERMONT Democrat -- Welch,

VIRGINIA Democrats -- Connolly, Moran, Perriello, Scott,

WASHINGTON Democrats -- Baird, Dicks, Inslee, Larsen, McDermott, Smith,

WEST VIRGINIA Democrats -- Mollohan, Rahall,

WISCONSIN Democrats -- Baldwin, Kagen, Kind, Moore, Obey,

Minimum Wage

We all like to think that everyone deserves to earn a descent wage. For the most part I agree with that concept. Unfortunately, there are those who are not qualified for wages above the minimum wage level. However, businesses are forced to pay substandard workers better than entry an level wage. This creates an imbalance, where workers worth a better wage are paid less to keep costs down. Have you noticed an increase in minimum wage, never means an across the board raise. So the only people who benefit are those not worth earning higher wages to begin with.
Another problem with paying a minimum wage is when that wage goes up business is more likely to reduce the size of the workforce, instead of paying more money for substandard work. When business downsizes, this creates more work for those remaining, as the trash jobs are spread out among the workforce, or farmed out to companies (such as those who specialize in performing janitorial contract services performed by "self-employed" franchisees who since they are self employed, work below minimum wage and pay a portion of their profits to the franchiser).
Many businesses have their human resources and clerical services serviced by third party companies for the same reason. Higher minimum wage means fewer high school students, find jobs, and hence are sitting around with nothing to do, but, get into trouble. When you look at who earns a minimum wage, you will find the entry level inexperienced and those who are all but unemployable. These should not be those who are trying to support a family, they should already be established workers.
I understand there are those who have lost their jobs for various reasons (like those whose jobs was eliminated when the minimum wage went up), for instance look at those whose jobs were eliminated as they became out of date (the Buggy whip industry comes to mind).
All one has to do is look at internship, and that process which gives an opportunity for someone to gain experience without the burden of employers having to pay them. Our own government has congressional interns, pages, and "volunteers" which in it's own view is perfectly within the law. Also, look to the food service industry, not the fast food industry, but high scale restaurants, they avoid paying minimum wage by professing that customers leave tips. But that would only be true of good wait staff. And, what makes it okay, for the government to utilize "volunteer" workers, without pay? Why do large media corporations, and medical organizations get to have interns, when McDonald's and Burger don't? I am not advocating allowing every business to have internships. What I am advocating making every place of employment adhere to the rules on a level playing ground. Letting the free market decide what employers pay, and what employees will work for.

Anchor Babies

In an earlier posting (Undocumented Workers? Why Can't We Call Them Illegal Aliens?) I discussed illegal immigration and touched on the subject of anchor babies. I thought it was necessary to expound on this phenomenon a little more. Currently under our laws, any child born in this country, is by definition an American citizen. I don't have a problem with this concept, except, for the fact that so many people cross over our borders, illegally, to give birth, and use this child to guarantee their right to stay in our country. Now, when you have someone who marries an American citizen, solely to gain citizenship, they are precluded from gaining their citizenship, on the basis of fraud. The same should be true of the parents of Anchor Babies. So I say that whereas the Anchor baby, should have citizenship granted to them, their parents should not, unless they go through legal proper legal channels, and qualify. To this I also stress having a child who is a legal citizen of the U.S. is not a qualifying reason for granting citizenship. If the child returns later on, he would automatically be an American citizen anyway, and would be able to claim such upon reentry to the country.

Freedom Of The Press, Freedom From The Press.

One of our nation's greatest abuses, is freedom of the press. I am not saying we should take away the media freedom. Freedom of the press, does not give the media carte blanche, to do whatever it feels like doing. There is a point of responsibility to the citizenry, it serves. When the press becomes abusive to that citizenry, it fails to meet it's obligations, when it harasses, when it misrepresents, when it out and out lies, and when it becomes the Creator of news instead of the reporter of news. When news stories are made of the families of victims or perpetrators and those families want to be left alone the press must, back down and leave those persons alone. The American people do not have the right to know the misery of those affected by the scum. that is not a story. As I stated in an earlier post I don't think the public at large even needs to know the names of the infamous.

Report the facts. They do need to know what is happening in their neighborhoods, cities and states. Facts would include descriptions of the suspects. I don't however prescribe to grocery store tabloids reporting garbage. They are not the press and should not be considered so. No matter how many articles they carry to legitimize their press credentials, when they publish articles about Roswell and alien pregnancies they are trash and therefore shouldn't be able to report speculative perversions or irregularities of personalities, and would be liable to lawsuits as any other citizen tearing down the reputations of others, to the point of criminal negligence.

In our legal system, suspects of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, in the press they are guilty until proven innocent, and remain guilty to those who do not read the mouse type on page G-16 in the lower left hand corner of the page. When a person of interest is raked over the coals by the press and it is determined that he was innocent, the reporting media should print or air a retraction equivalent of the wrong information. For instance Headline on page 1 reads "Morris Murders Mumford" in 76 point bold script. When Morris is found innocent instead of a 1 column 1" article written in 6 point script on Page D-12. The retraction is written in 76 Point bold script as a headline on page 1. If the TV report comes on as the lead story of the 6 O'clock news guess where the retraction appears..... not at 11:28 PM but, again at 6 O'clock as the lead story. It is just and fair. In election years any news reports covering the candidates must show true unbiased stories reveling just the facts , Not "Journalistic" pandering to the media sweetheart. For every minute of coverage for a candidate a minute of coverage will be available for his opponent at a time slot equal to that of the other.

Video Trials

How often have you seen some lawyer show (Movie or TV series), where the lawyer stands up and asks a question, that even the novice knows should not have been asked? The opposing lawyer will jump up and object, the judge will sustain the objection then direct the jury to disregard the question. We all know the shyster lawyer got his point across, and no matter who is on the jury, or what they are told, they will keep that tidbit of information to themselves and wonder. Not only that but, what about the parade of witnesses who not only have to be kept waiting for their opportunity to testify, but, after a long drawn out harassment of the lawyers present asking and restating their questions, objecting and pointing out their objections the jury is left wondering if what they had to say was pertinent to begin with. Sometimes after a witness has given his testimony, we find out through cross examination that it was all bogus perjury to begin with. Now, once again we are directed by the judge to disregard his statements. In the worst scenario our defendant sits through the trial and realizes he hasn't a foot to stand on, after several weeks he caves in changes his plea, and the jury has been forced to witness their time wasted, without the satisfaction of passing a verdict forward. You might ask, what else could we do, to make it more streamlined?

I propose that the entire trial be recorded, and edited prior to seating of the jury. Obviously this would not be every case, but the big ones, and many of the medium sized ones, perhaps one day all of them could be done that way. It starts out, with depositions; Depositions become the actual testimonies that would be aired. Any objections made would be aired and once the Judge has ruled on the objection, one of two things would happen 1) the Judge over rules the objection and the tape would be edited of the lawyer making the objection, or 2) the Judge sustains the objection and the both the objection and the substance of the objection is edited out of the testimony, as if it never happened. Perjured witnesses would be edited out completely. Pertinent witnesses and their testimonies would be allowed to remain, but, after review the Judge could decide if their presence was even relative. Any Courtroom dramatics could be edited out and re taped to prevent improper exposure to the jury. Any mistrials could be corrected by editing of the improper evidence or acts (saving the taxpayer the money necessary to stage another trial). The tapes could be used for appeals as well.

After the trial, and the tapes have been reviewed for content (removing what should have been removed) the Jury is seated. Review of the tapes will be able to inform juries how long they will be needed. No need for juries to be sequestered for extended periods during recesses, so lawyers can gather witnesses who didn't show up on time on were needed at an inappropriate time. When the Jury is seated, there will be the Judge, the opposing Lawyers (no need for large teams), the Defendant, the Bailiff or two, and court stenographer (perhaps with the video taping that would be a formality that can be eliminated saving more money). The video would run any and all evidences be shown and passed about. The jury would then deliberate and make their verdict known.

At that time the jury would be thanked and let go. Unless they were needed for capital crimes and determine if capital measures were needed for punishment.

Another Response to Interest Price Fixing

After this I shall resume posting on what I feel is "The Way It Should Be". As I review the input from various persons, who emailed me concerning price controls on the price of money, I begin to think some of you have the right idea. People are responsible for their own situations in most cases. Banks and credit card companies should be able to set their own interest rates. Retailers should be able to set their own prices on their products. So I put forth to you that it comes down to personal responsibility. This can be carried over to almost every facet of society. My original posting which brought on this controversy was over Bankruptcy. So let's look at this aspect. Should we be able to file bankruptcy at all? Why should we be able to erase our debts at all? In ancient days, if you were unable to pay your debts you were sold into slavery, and that could have included members of your immediate family as well. Should we bring back that practice? We can scoff at price controls all we want, but, when you come right down to it; there are a lot of things society has price controlled, body organs come to mind. What business of it is mine if you want to sell your spare kidney to the highest bidder? It's your kidney. Why not? If you die, why can't your family sell your heart, spleen, kidneys, lungs, or anything else for that matter? The Government has set down price controls on those items.... The government says they must be a gift, you are not allowed to sell them or have anyone bid on them in auction. Ticket scalpers, they are purchasing a product for resale, why then shouldn't they be able to sell those tickets for whatever price the market is willing to bear? When a hurricane hits a community or any other natural disaster, why can't people purchase water at a dollar a bottle and sell it at $10.00 or more? Plywood? Generators? The list goes on. When it comes to personal responsibility why stop at economics? Libertarians profess an attitude that they should be able to do anything they please as long as it doesn't interfere with (or could interfere with) the rights of others. So speeding would be illegal if you are endangering others. Driving drunk would be illegal since you are exposing others to a hazardous situation. Libertarians would also advocate the use of what are now illegal drugs, since you are only harming yourself and not others. Again it would boil down to personal freedom. If I want to charge you $20 for borrowing $5, as long as you don't have a problem with it, what does it matter? If you want to smoke dope in your own home, and as long as you keep it contained and not in your car going 120 mph stoned, what concern of it is mine? Now if we take on this attitude, what restrictions must we implement to keep us from destroying society? First of all, if you get all liquored up and ruin your liver, don't ask anyone to pay for its replacement, that should be you and your family responsibility (would the insurance company be able to place a clause in your insurance agreement stating that if you were responsible for your condition they would be exempt from paying out on your bills?. The Federal government already refuses to pay off a service member’s SGLI (Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance) if the service member dies in an accident where they are not wearing seat belts (or in the case of a motorcycle accident not wearing a helmet). So where does this all lead you may ask. My Blog is "The Way It Should Be” In a perfect world there would be no need to limit companies on how much interest they lend out, they would do the right thing. In a perfect world we would all adopt the proper attitude when it came down to how we conduct our business and our lives. There would be no loan sharks waiting for the easy mark, ready to break your legs when you don’t pay up. If we had no limits on interest and the deal was the open door, Loan Sharks would be upstanding citizens offering a commodity to those in need. Is Citibank a legal Loan Shark? That, without restrictions is able to raise your interest rates as long as they give you a 30 day notice? Don’t they metaphorically break your economic legs when you are behind? It is right to garnish your wages for a credit card debt, to ensure they get paid before your Mortgage Company, utility company, or grocer? You may think this treatise is socialistic, but I think it is more Conservative in nature. By allowing people to grow more economically on their own, you open up a real economy based on product and demand for that product. When people have more to spend, they spend it. If we reduce the amount they can spend on products, because they have to pay off interest on stuff they have already bought, then no amount of stimulus money will be able to correct a turn in the economy. Money is not a commodity; it is the means in which commodities are exchanged for labor. Interest cheapens the value of labor, by reducing what can be purchased with it. When you create more products, with a wider Marketplace, Society becomes stronger. Perhaps credit cards should be traded in for debit cards and products sold for their value. Would you spend $360,000 for a $125,000 house? People do that every day, and oh yes that price just up to $400,000 because you don’t have a good credit history. I am just saying that interest rates are too high and the people who can afford to pay them, don’t have to, where is the equality? Again in a perfect world we would not need to limit what we do, because we would just naturally do it.

A Response Concerning Price Controls On Interest Rates

I received an Email expressing concern that I was advocating price controls when I stated that interest rates should be capped at 10%. I was. I have no reservations over the federal government when they take steps to “provide for the common good” as is directed by the preamble of our constitution. I also look to the oath of office sworn by our presidents and senators to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Let me outline the reasons I have against usury (the practice of lending money at astronomically high rates).

Let us first look at the religious reasons

1) Jews are forbidden to lend at interest to one another. Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25:35-37.

2) The Prophet Ezekiel includes usury in a list of “abominable things,” along with rape, murder, robbery and idolatry. Ezekiel 18:19-13.

3) Medieval Canon Law Usury is punishable by ex-communication

4) 1306-1321 Dante pens “The Inferno,” in which he places usurers at the lowest ledge in the seventh circle of hell – lower than murderers. “to live without labor was denounced as unnatural, and so Dante put usurers in the same circle of hell as the inhabitants of Sodom and other practices of unnatural vice”

5) 1483-1547 Martin Luther compared the taking of usury with theft and murder, as does the Scriptures.


But, let's go in another direction. How about our own history

1) Early 18th Century American colonies adopt usury laws, setting the interest cap at 8%.

2) After 1776 all of the States in the Union adopt a general usury. Most states set the interest limit at 6%.

So apparently our forefathers had no qualms about price controls when it came to interest rates and what would be considered usury. As we became more liberal with the concept of loaning money it soon caused our society to make money more available by making it more attractive for the banks to lend out, Thus allowing the banks to make more money off of our money that was sitting in their vaults.

1) Early 1900's a move to deregulation causes 11 states to eliminate their usury laws. Nine more states raise the usury cap to 10% or 12%. Banks are not making personal loans. “Salary Lenders” fill the need by “purchasing” a worker’s future wages in exchange for a high fee – equal to a lending rate of 10% - 33%.

2) 1916 A Uniform Small Loan Law allows specially-licensed lenders to charge higher interest rates—up to 36%—in return for adhering to strict standards of lending.

Obviously these practices help set the stage for the great depression loans were made at high rates, and the money used to buy stocks that when the paper tower collapsed, worthless stocks became as worthless as the paper loans used to purchase them. People ended up upside down with no way of paying off their debts. You would have thought we would have learned our lesson, but, no the great depression was alleviated by of all things World War 2. And when that was over......

1) 1945 - 1979 All states adopt special loan laws that cap interest at higher than the general usury rate—at 36%—but cap it nevertheless.

2) 1978 The US Supreme Court decides that national banks may export the state interest rate law of their home state into any state where they do business. In response, South Dakota eliminates its interest rate caps. Several credit card issuing banks move to South Dakota and operate nationally with no interest rate cap.

3) 1980 Congress preempts state interest rate controls on all first lien mortgages. This enables predatory mortgage lenders to make seemingly affordable loans, like adjustable rate and interest-only loans that lead to foreclosure for many.

4) 1994 Congress adopts the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, which provides some substantive protections to home mortgage borrowers with interest rates or points that are extraordinarily expensive, but sets no limits on what can be charged for these loans.

5) 1994 -2005 Many states and cities try to protect their citizens by adopting state statutes and local ordinances to curb predatory lending, but preemption claims by the federal government impede their efforts. Numerous bills are introduced in Congress to protect consumers in a wide range of transactions, including rent-to-own, credit cards, payday lending, and predatory mortgage lending, but none of these bills makes it to a hearing.

6) 2001 - 2007 Predatory and mainly subprime lenders make home loans to people who cannot afford them, boosting their own profits in the short term. Many of these loans are packaged and sold to Wall Street.

7) 2005 after extensive pressure from the industry, the federal government changes bankruptcy laws, making it harder for consumers to discharge debts and get a clean start in bankruptcy.

8) 2006 Congress passes the “Talent Amendment” which to caps interest on loans made to active military personnel and their families at 36%, reacting to findings that high-cost payday lenders had been targeting the military.

9) 2007 Foreclosure rates begin to increase dramatically as a result of predatory mortgage lending. The launch of Americans for Fairness in Lending (AFFIL), a national multi-organization collaborative message and action campaign designed to raise public awareness and generate outrage about predatory lending.

10) 2008 Unpaid mortgages cause mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street to continue to "go bad," triggering widespread economic downturn in both the United States and around the world. Some commercial and investment banks go bankrupt, and some are the object of government "bailouts."

So how can we stand by and watch the financial system wreck havoc on our economy. Think of this when loans were at rates of 12 -16% Banks paid us 5-6% interest on our savings. As loan rates have climbed what has happened to our return rate? How much do you get paid on money sitting in your savings account? Your Money Market account? Or your CD's?

Price controls on banks? Maybe if they lent their money more responsibly..... They wouldn't need it. Maybe if we look deeper into who owns the banks...... we will see more politicians and lawyers. Just think our forefathers thought 6% interest was too much, now we have 36% and more.... Remember Income tax was originally set at 3% and how much do you pay now? Maybe we should set price controls.

Bankruptcy

The bitter truth is more Americans consider bankruptcy every day. One of the main culprits, are the banks. The banks and credit card companies have raised interest rates through the roof as our law makers sit idly by watching with little or no concern for the welfare of the nation. What should we do to correct these issues?

1) Congress must pass legislation regulating the maximum interest rate chargeable (usury laws are state laws that specify the maximum legal interest rate at which loans can be made. Congress has opted not to regulate interest rates on purely private transactions, although it arguably has the power to do so under the interstate commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution. Congress has opted to put a federal criminal limit on interest rates by the RICO definitions of "unlawful debt" which make it a federal felony to lend money at an interest rate more than two times the local state usury rate and then try to collect that "unlawful debt". It is a federal offense to use violence or threats to collect usurious interest. Such activity is referred to as loan sharking, although that term is also applied to non-coercive usurious lending, or even to the practice of making consumer loans without a license in jurisdictions that require licenses). I would purpose that an interest rate greater than 12% (1% per month) would be a reasonable rate.

2) There should be 3 levels of Bankruptcy.

A) when the Bankruptcy Judge deems that debts are spiraling out of control, yet the person or persons filing are by their own actions responsible for their condition (i.e. Not as under natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or other regional disasters also known as an act of God, or personal disaster such as catastrophic illness, criminal victimization of person or family member or any other situation deemed by the judge as pertaining to the issue of debts). When so deemed all interest rates are suspended and payments made only upon the principle. During the time frame set out by the judge, payments will be constructed to pay off those debts by the end of that said time (i.e. if the debtor owes $12000 in outstanding debts and the judge rules the bankruptcy duration as one year the debtor shall pay to the court $1000 per month; exceptions for payoffs may be imposed by the judge to include mortgages). Level A, bankruptcies may be universally applied to areas affected as National Disaster Areas so designated by the President, without the payoff clause enacted. Thus minimum payments must be made; again all payments during this time would be interest free. Under Level A bankruptcies new debts may be incurred, however, these debts will be exempt from the no interest clause with the exception of new medical debts or recovery loans (loans made to recover from natural disasters). Level A bankruptcies may not be carried on the debtor’s credit report past the payoff date.

B) When the Bankruptcy Judge deems that debts are spiraling out of control, and the person or persons are responsible for their condition. The Judge will review the debts, and be charged with determining whether such debts may be released or restructured. Any debts which are released and having assets will at the discretion of the Judge be dissolved by surrender of said assets to the creditor. The Judge will then assign a recovery fee to be collected by the court and disbursed to creditors. The recovery fee shall be made over a period of time not to exceed 7 years and no less than 1 year, where the debtor shall make payments according to the terms put down by the Judge. Under Level B Bankruptcies, no new debts may be incurred without appeal to the court until said time that the recovery fee is satisfied. Any windfall assets received by the debtor must be reported to the court and assessed by the judge, pending determination of the new conditions which may at the Judge’s discretion give grounds to restructuring or dissolution. Level B bankruptcies may only remain on the debtor’s credit report for no more than 3 years past the recovery fee payoff.

C) When the Judge determines that the situation is beyond control and the condition is his or her responsibility. He may dissolve all debts and order collection of all assets (exemptions of a primary home valued no greater than the National Median price and a single vehicle also valued no greater than the National Median price). At said time, this Bankruptcy shall bear full impact and may remain on the debtor’s credit report for a full 10 years. Any windfall assets received within the 10 year period may be confiscated by the court to be disbursed to creditors...

3) Unlawful or unfair collection of debt shall be addressed by the courts. In these proceedings, should the court find fault with the collection agency or the creditor, said debts may be forgiven, reduced, or restructured (assigned a lower interest rate).

Putting America Back To Work: The Rebirth of the Works Progress Administration

In the 1930's President Roosevelt created the National Recovery Act (NRA), which included the Works Progress Administration (WPA). This was originally was designed to put unemployed Americans back to work. What came out of it was the single largest Infrastructure project this nation had ever seen. Through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), rural America was given cheap electricity in a time where they would have waited years before the large electrical providers would have ever considered giving them service. These work projects included highways, dams, navigable waterways, buildings, and parks. Originally set up as busy work, the WPA, was funded by Americans to benefit Americans. Now, we are 70 to 80 years past the onset of these projects and little has been done to keep them going. Many Dams in the Tennessee valley are long over due for improvements, or renovation, sooner or later, we will suffer from this lack of substantial care. Many states are not capable or willing to expend the necessary funding to properly care for them. The private sector has all but priced government out of the picture. It is time to take an organization such as the Army Corps of Engineers, and develop it into a National Corps of Engineering. This Corps would take over public works projects, administer and maintain them. The Corps would be made up not only of administrators, but engineers and construction workers. This would provide a workable force, who would not only regulate, but do the actual work, and would not be susceptible to the fluctuations in market price. Thus preventing private contractors the opportunity to get rich on bureaucratic delays and cost over rides. Since the federal government would be handling Interstate highway and bridge construction, like they do on dredging projects on America's waterways. Dams, would also fall under these considerations, and perhaps the generation of power and distribution of same should fall under these constraints, making power generation a business of America, along with sewage and water distribution, relaxing the need of individual monopolies in our neighborhoods and cities. Another advantage of this would be electrical rates would be leveled out and everyone would be paying a fair price (as long as we keep an eye on the government to ensure they don't rip us off.....).

Take Away Their 15 Minutes Of Fame

One of the saddest commentaries on American Society is who we remember. John Wilkes Booth, I don't need to tell you was Lincoln's assassin. Lee Harvey Oswald, was John F. Kennedy's assassin. Strangely enough we even know their middle names..... Can anyone tell me General Custer's full name (George Armstrong Custer)? We remember people like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Jeffery Dalmer, John Wayne Gacey, Do the names Theodore Bundy, Charles Manson Ring a bell? But, let me ask a more poignant question.... Should they? Why do we dwell on the infamous? Perhaps we should ignore them. Obviously, we shouldn't ignore the deeds of evil, but, why do we need to know Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris ran amok at columbine high? Instead we should know that two distraught youths ran amok and maimed and murdered their class mates, and now are now doomed to eternal anonymity. History books should read Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's theatre by a southern sympathizer. Let the memory of John Wilkes Booth be forgotten, forever. The same should be true of any other murderer or truly evil person. We should not give them their 15 minutes of fame... That should be reserved for; Chelsey B. Sullenberger III (pilot of US Airways Flight 1549), William Rodriguez (World Trade Center Maintenance worker who saved 15 people on 9-11), William David "Dave" Sanders (died helping over 100 students escape from Columbine High School), Lance Corporal Joe C Paul (Died after placing himself between the enemy and his wounded comrades in Viet Nam), and Etc... Etc... Etc... on down to the Mother who lifts a car off of her baby. These are the people who deserve their 15 minutes of fame....
My solution The newspapers don't need to publish the names of the demons and monsters, who run amok through society, stealing, killing, raping and generally abusing society; It serves no purpose. Delete their names from memory, don't burn them into the collective conscientiousness of society. Erase their names from their tombstones, let the good people who are left behind in their families suffer in quiet pain and away from the limelight of the media vampires who will suck the blood from them and the victims of their relatives actions. Again it serves no purpose to give them their 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps by taking that away from them, others will not see the opportunity for infamy.

How To Stop The Press From Picking Our President

The sad thing has been since the Election of 1960, the press has been picking our presidents; in particular the National Television Media. Had television, been around during the 1860 election it would have been inconceivable that a homely, lanky backwoods lawyer such as Abraham Lincoln would have ever been elected. We have to look at that first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, and really ponder weather Kennedy could have won without it. The closeness of that election was tilted in Kennedy’s favor when the Nation was able to see Kennedy and Nixon together. Due to unfavorable lighting and a lack of make-up, Nixon stood there looking more like a dock worker than a man wanting to be the next president. He had what appeared to be a 5 o’clock shadow, plus it was obvious that Kennedy towered over him (A fact that Nixon took into consideration in 1968 when he ran against Hubert Humphrey and won). Now we have leveled back out as far as they are, able to as our candidates now run their campaigns in the same popularity contests found in high schools. The other side of the Media tilt happens on each Primary, as they occur. Local and National affiliates play the poll games, asking people who they are behind, or as when they are exiting from the voting precincts, who they voted for. This creates a situation where people who vote in the early primaries are literally influencing those who vote in the later primaries (since many people want to vote for a winner). Not to mention those who don’t do well in the early primaries wind up dropping out before the big ones since they ran out of funds (no one will donate to the man who can’t win early on). So you are undoubtedly asking right now, “How do we correct this?”

Step 1) Change the dates of all the primaries to one day.

Step 2) Add a secondary where the top 2 candidates from each party have a run off (thereby making Conventions unnecessary).

Step 3) Take away the Rich factor. Level the playing field. Every Candidate should be allotted so many commercial spots to be aired nationwide as PSA’s (Public Service Announcements). Same would be true of mailings.

Step 4) National debates would occur on a regional and national basis, with full coverage. During the Primaries and Secondaries, All qualified candidates would be allowed to participate in their party’s debate.

Step 5) all candidates will submit a full disclosure to the National Election Committee, where qualifications would be reviewed, and eligibility confirmed. The FBI will also conduct a full background check, to determine if there are any discrepancies or irregularities which might bring on any legal issues. Once completed these dossiers’ would be available to all persons concerned (i.e. The American Public).

Step 6) all candidates would present their platforms to the American public, so each and every American will know where their candidate stands on the issues in a format which will allow each American to compare candidates across the board side by side with each other.

Step 7) Public appearances will be done at first party by party with all the candidates able to give speeches at each appearance until the two candidates have been chosen for the national election then at that time the candidates will be able to campaign without the other, as they see fit.

Step 8) since they will be elected as described in an earlier post (see my post titled Return To The Original Selection Process) there will be no need to select a running mate.

Step 9) Limit the donations to only those made by private citizens and not to exceed $200.00, and all unused funds will be redirected to the Party’s general fund.

Step 10) any unsolicited ads made by private citizens will be allowed but, must adhere to strict ethical standards or the person paying for the ad could be held responsible for any libelous or slanderous content. And such ads will be scrutinized by the National Election Committee, to determine their content. No ads can be aired during the last 5 days of the election if they haven’t been submitted at least 20 days prior to the election for review.

Step 11) News Stories, should be News, not commentary The Press will be restricted to the presentation of News stories only when reporting on the candidates during News programs. Any other format is fine as long as they don’t try and pass off commentaries as the News.