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.