This is it right here folks...you want to see a patriot, I give you Jim Broussard, a United States Army veteran who correctly saw it necessary to fix an issue where a Mexican flag was being flown above an American flag. See for yourself. Jim, I salute you and thank you for your service.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Can we elminate the use of "African American?"
Seriously, how many generations ago was it that your family members actually came from Africa? Do you know what country? Where they came to in the US?
I'm all for knowing your heritage, but can't we all grow up and get over the distinctions that continue to preserve self-imposed discrimination and another way to group individuals separately from others?
We're all descendants from somewhere else, thats fine, but the fact remains that if we all travel back to where our predecessors came from, we're not seen as natives of that country. Irish Americans from New York City and Boston aren't seen as prodigal sons and daughters when they go back to Ireland. They're seen as Americans. Americans of African descent, the term I like to use, aren't seen as native Africans and welcome home with open arms by their brethren in whatever country in Africa.
All of us as diverse individuals who join the armed forces, we fight under the one single flag of the United States of America. When our troops go abroad, they're seen as Americans, nothing else.
When we all grow up, put the big boy and girl pants on, and start acting like adults about it, that we're all Americans, we'll see a unity this country hasn't seen since its foundation. We'll see a unity far stronger than those trying days, weeks, and months following 9/11. We'll have a resolve that cannot be broken by any act of terror. When we stop classifying ourselves and pointing out our differences as something to gripe about rather than simply diversity, we'll see this great republic for what it was intended to be...the land of the free and home of the brave.
I'm all for knowing your heritage, but can't we all grow up and get over the distinctions that continue to preserve self-imposed discrimination and another way to group individuals separately from others?
We're all descendants from somewhere else, thats fine, but the fact remains that if we all travel back to where our predecessors came from, we're not seen as natives of that country. Irish Americans from New York City and Boston aren't seen as prodigal sons and daughters when they go back to Ireland. They're seen as Americans. Americans of African descent, the term I like to use, aren't seen as native Africans and welcome home with open arms by their brethren in whatever country in Africa.
All of us as diverse individuals who join the armed forces, we fight under the one single flag of the United States of America. When our troops go abroad, they're seen as Americans, nothing else.
When we all grow up, put the big boy and girl pants on, and start acting like adults about it, that we're all Americans, we'll see a unity this country hasn't seen since its foundation. We'll see a unity far stronger than those trying days, weeks, and months following 9/11. We'll have a resolve that cannot be broken by any act of terror. When we stop classifying ourselves and pointing out our differences as something to gripe about rather than simply diversity, we'll see this great republic for what it was intended to be...the land of the free and home of the brave.
Affirmative Action vs. Racial Profiling
Anyone else tired of hearing about the race card when it's convenient? I'm sick of hearing about how this group of people is racist or that group of people is racist. I'm tired of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, now Sen. Barack Hussein Obama finding racial issues with various groups of people, our schools, our police departments, and our government.
I just want to know why it's acceptable to use racial profiling when considering candidates for college applications or job applicants through Affirmative Action, but it's not acceptable to use racial profiling to limit or stop crime. Just caught a show on TV about the DC Sniper case from October 2002...it was acceptable for the media to run stories suggesting the sniper was a white male, 20-40 years of age based solely on the statistics that 80% of serial killers are white men 20-40 years of age. How is that NOT racial profiling? Why is it acceptable to use racial profiling, incorrect profiling against white people, but God help you and have mercy on your soul if you suggest a black person may be responsible for something based solely on statistics.
If minorities want equality, then they should be demanding equality in every aspect of life and demanding equality for all. Eliminate entitlement programs that give special favors based on skin color. Eliminate racial profiling against all colors and religions. Entitlement programs like affirmative action don't end or reduce racism, they protect its existence and those who use it know it...they got the job, got into that school, etc based on skin color, not qualifications or accomplishments. White people resent being denied opportunity because of a mandate requiring skin color to be a qualification we can't meet and have no control over. So, programs like racial profiling, I mean Affirmative Action, do nothing but continue the existence of bad feelings between the races.
The ring leaders of this racial circus continue spreading racism and discrimination by constantly making excuses for people when it's convenient to seize the microphone, television cameras, and press articles to keep their faces and agendas in the media.
When equality is demanded by all for all, that's when we'll start to see a reduction in discrimination, racism, and ill-contempt between the races.
I just want to know why it's acceptable to use racial profiling when considering candidates for college applications or job applicants through Affirmative Action, but it's not acceptable to use racial profiling to limit or stop crime. Just caught a show on TV about the DC Sniper case from October 2002...it was acceptable for the media to run stories suggesting the sniper was a white male, 20-40 years of age based solely on the statistics that 80% of serial killers are white men 20-40 years of age. How is that NOT racial profiling? Why is it acceptable to use racial profiling, incorrect profiling against white people, but God help you and have mercy on your soul if you suggest a black person may be responsible for something based solely on statistics.
If minorities want equality, then they should be demanding equality in every aspect of life and demanding equality for all. Eliminate entitlement programs that give special favors based on skin color. Eliminate racial profiling against all colors and religions. Entitlement programs like affirmative action don't end or reduce racism, they protect its existence and those who use it know it...they got the job, got into that school, etc based on skin color, not qualifications or accomplishments. White people resent being denied opportunity because of a mandate requiring skin color to be a qualification we can't meet and have no control over. So, programs like racial profiling, I mean Affirmative Action, do nothing but continue the existence of bad feelings between the races.
The ring leaders of this racial circus continue spreading racism and discrimination by constantly making excuses for people when it's convenient to seize the microphone, television cameras, and press articles to keep their faces and agendas in the media.
When equality is demanded by all for all, that's when we'll start to see a reduction in discrimination, racism, and ill-contempt between the races.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The government is supposed to take care of us right?
Where did this idea come from that the government is responsible for my personal satisfaction in life? Where did this idea come from that the government is supposed to provide me with my health care or my inalienable rights?
The last I checked, the government's responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way and let me live MY life. The government is responsible for ensuring that the economic environment is suitable for me to pursue my own ventures, businesses, and opportunities to be successful. I'm supposed to have the freedom to be as successful as I choose to be without limitations from the government on my income. The government is there to make sure my life isn't being over-regulated and overburdened making it impossible to be successful or taxed at such a rate that being successful, growing a business, and creating jobs simply isn't worth it. Or, even worse, the economic environment is better outside of this country so I take my entire business elsewhere. The government is there to make sure my rights are not infringed upon. The government is responsible for maintaining the sanctity and security of this great nation.
It's my job to handle my health care needs. I don't need the government robbing me of my wages to provide me with something I am more than capable of providing myself. Medicare, Social Security, socialized healthcare, you name it. I can take care of myself.
It's my job to provide my own personal protection and there is a key word coming up here, watch for it, SELF-defense. It's my own personal responsibility. It's my responsibility to live my life, keep my liberty, and pursue my own happiness. The government is not in place to give me my rights or to hand out benefits. It's the government's job to make sure nothing violates or infringes on those inalienable rights.
I'm tired of people looking to the government for things they need. We are a more than capable people, we are determined, we are strong-willed. We have everything we need to build and create what we want and need. Obama and Clinton are dropping the word change more than seagulls drop crap on the beach. I suggest that if we want change, we start looking at ourselves and make the necessary changes as individuals first. After we stop being so dependent on the government to take care of us and hold our hands, we'll truly have the ability to see what must change at the local, state, and federal levels of government.
The last I checked, the government's responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way and let me live MY life. The government is responsible for ensuring that the economic environment is suitable for me to pursue my own ventures, businesses, and opportunities to be successful. I'm supposed to have the freedom to be as successful as I choose to be without limitations from the government on my income. The government is there to make sure my life isn't being over-regulated and overburdened making it impossible to be successful or taxed at such a rate that being successful, growing a business, and creating jobs simply isn't worth it. Or, even worse, the economic environment is better outside of this country so I take my entire business elsewhere. The government is there to make sure my rights are not infringed upon. The government is responsible for maintaining the sanctity and security of this great nation.
It's my job to handle my health care needs. I don't need the government robbing me of my wages to provide me with something I am more than capable of providing myself. Medicare, Social Security, socialized healthcare, you name it. I can take care of myself.
It's my job to provide my own personal protection and there is a key word coming up here, watch for it, SELF-defense. It's my own personal responsibility. It's my responsibility to live my life, keep my liberty, and pursue my own happiness. The government is not in place to give me my rights or to hand out benefits. It's the government's job to make sure nothing violates or infringes on those inalienable rights.
I'm tired of people looking to the government for things they need. We are a more than capable people, we are determined, we are strong-willed. We have everything we need to build and create what we want and need. Obama and Clinton are dropping the word change more than seagulls drop crap on the beach. I suggest that if we want change, we start looking at ourselves and make the necessary changes as individuals first. After we stop being so dependent on the government to take care of us and hold our hands, we'll truly have the ability to see what must change at the local, state, and federal levels of government.
For all you America haters:
Get the hell out. If you don't like our Constitution, or system of government where we elect our leaders and representatives, if you don't like firearms or the fact that I'm carrying a .45 right now as I type this, if you don't like capitalism and having the freedom to make as much money as you want, if you don't like being able to choose your own health care, if you don't like that business owners get tax breaks for taking the risk of running the business to provide others with jobs, if you don't like individual rights, if you don't like the rights of the individual being considered more important than the collective good of the masses, if you don't like that I refuse to allow people to infringe upon my rights in an effort to help someone else feel good, if you don't like the system immigrants must go through to become legal and valid United States citizens, if you don't like that the rights of being an American aren't afforded to non-Americans (such as Social Security, Medicare, Driver's Licenses, voting, etc.), if you don't like the fact that I prefer to take care of myself rather than have the government babysit me, then go ahead, leave. There are daily flights out of here. Call me, I'll help you arrange one and perhaps I'll drive you to the airport.
That applies to you Mr. Obama and Mr./Mrs. Clinton. You are more than welcome to go a country who would welcome you with open arms as a political leader. This country was founded on freedom, the American Revolution, not the Russian Revolution. This country was founded on principles of freedom, not oppression, not tyranny, not the government's control in every daily aspect of my life.
So, for those of you who think the government should just take care of all this stuff so we don't have to think, there are lots of rafts in Florida and around the Gulf the Cubans are leaving there as they are coming here because they know what the American Dream is, they know what freedom is and the difference between the US and the rest of the world. Castro and his brother would gladly take you on as they love people who want the government to tell them think and live.
So long, have a safe trip, and enjoy your new life outside of this wonderful country.
That applies to you Mr. Obama and Mr./Mrs. Clinton. You are more than welcome to go a country who would welcome you with open arms as a political leader. This country was founded on freedom, the American Revolution, not the Russian Revolution. This country was founded on principles of freedom, not oppression, not tyranny, not the government's control in every daily aspect of my life.
So, for those of you who think the government should just take care of all this stuff so we don't have to think, there are lots of rafts in Florida and around the Gulf the Cubans are leaving there as they are coming here because they know what the American Dream is, they know what freedom is and the difference between the US and the rest of the world. Castro and his brother would gladly take you on as they love people who want the government to tell them think and live.
So long, have a safe trip, and enjoy your new life outside of this wonderful country.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Another racist black "preacher"
Just kind of curious how people get away with saying stuff like this and Don Imus gets fired for talking about nappy headed hoes...just mind boggling when you see "people" like this and Jeremiah Wright claim to be the victims of racism and they spew this garbage in a house of worship and call themselves "Christians."
I'm also tired of people putting religious tones on Obama as if he is some sort of ordained savior. If the guy is our savior, after seeing the "church" he's attended for the last 20+ years, he is in no way a messiah; rather, it wouldn't take much to convince me this man is the anti-christ.
I'm also tired of people putting religious tones on Obama as if he is some sort of ordained savior. If the guy is our savior, after seeing the "church" he's attended for the last 20+ years, he is in no way a messiah; rather, it wouldn't take much to convince me this man is the anti-christ.
This is going to be good...
Now that we're seeing the beginning stages of the gun ban case unfold, it becomes more and more clear how some people get it, and others, well, just don't. It is quite evident that a large group of people exists who simply refuse to hold people accountable as adults. They simply want to make excuses. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the supporters of the gun ban who protest with their silly signs saying to the effect "Guns Kill!"
Let me fix that sign for you..."People Kill!"
Instead of holding criminals responsible and actually saying what needs to be said, they make excuses and believe everyone will behave, hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Yah if we ban guns. Fact of the matter is, when you ban guns, crime soars. It's happened every time, well, except once, sort of...in 1933, Hitler declared to the world Germany had the most advanced and best gun ban in the world...crime among the people didn't rise, but the police state took care of that and created the definition of war crimes. Back on track, plain and simple, when the citizens of the free world have guns to defend themselves, crime does not rise. When that right is infringed upon and access to guns for self defense is not allowed, crime soars. Look at the stats. I'm not making this up.
What do we really need to say about the gun crimes? Well, to start, where does the majority of it happen? In cities, where poverty is high. How much of the gun crimes happening in these United States is black-on-black crime? Before you throw down the racist card, I'm just going by the numbers. Really, how much gun crime happens in your small town America communities? How much gun crime happens in your farming communities? Those communities can be largely made up of any race in any geographical area? The fact of the matter is this, most gun crimes happen in urban environments where poverty runs rampant. Why aren't we banning poverty? That's a completely different topic and the welfare system has already been discussed.
Next point, the Second Amendment is the building block upon which all others are based. If you don't have the right to bear arms, how do you protect yourself against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion? How do you protect your rights against someone who is willing to use force to take them away if you don't have the necessary arms to combat that force? We can debate and use diplomacy all we want, but diplomacy doesn't work when your opponent doesn't want to use words, reason, and logic.
Some will say the Second Amendment applies to the militia...well, who made up the militias at the time the Constitution was written? The militia was a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency. Who were those citizens? All able-bodied males. If you look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it says this: "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." So, let's take a look at this...what protects the free state? The militia, right? Right. Who makes up the members of the militia? The individuals, the people, and for those people to do their necessary duty, keeping and bearing arms is necessary and shall not be infringed. So, considering the militia was all able-bodied males (and we'll allow for females since we have willing and able-bodied women who choose to serve), and arms are necessary to defend the free State, how can you take away the right to bear and keep arms from the individual?
Let me just say this, when is it ever a good idea to infringe upon the rights of others in an attempt to solve a problem? You can't call it a solution if it's infringing upon my rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among our inalienable rights. When you take away might right to self-defense, now you're subjecting me to being incapable of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government's job is not to give out rights or take them away. The government's job is to make sure no one is infringing upon my inalienable rights. The government is not responsible for taking care of me and making me pay taxes to do this duty when I am completely capable of doing it myself. I don't need the government to ban guns or legislate "reasonable" restrictions on them in an effort to provide security and safety for me. I especially don't need the government's services in that area of my life when they can't get the job done in the first place. Have gun crimes stopped? No. Has illegal gun trafficking stopped? No. So, in an effort to stop something they can't stop already, they're going to continue to whittle away at my rights as the law abiding citizen when I need that right to protect myself from the same people they're trying to stop. It's a paradox and for some reason, some people just don't get it. They think ammo registration and databases and microstamping, and gun bans, and more restrictions are going to stop the gun violence when nothing they've done this far is working. What they need to do is encourage more people to take up arms and provide their on security, protection, and self-defense. Through time, fewer criminals will survive their crimes and the rest who think about committing crimes will have to decide whether or not risking their lives to commit crime is worth it. Right now, it's a decision the law-abiding citizens must make and decide if not carrying a firearm for self-defense is worth it.
For me, the decision is simple. I keep fresh batteries in my smoke detectors and I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Do I expect to have a house fire every day? No. Do I buy health insurance? Yes. Do I have life insurance? Yes. Do I expect to get hurt, sick, or die every day? No. It's called precaution. It's called preparedness. It's called taking personal responsibility.
Let Freedom Ring.
Let me fix that sign for you..."People Kill!"
Instead of holding criminals responsible and actually saying what needs to be said, they make excuses and believe everyone will behave, hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Yah if we ban guns. Fact of the matter is, when you ban guns, crime soars. It's happened every time, well, except once, sort of...in 1933, Hitler declared to the world Germany had the most advanced and best gun ban in the world...crime among the people didn't rise, but the police state took care of that and created the definition of war crimes. Back on track, plain and simple, when the citizens of the free world have guns to defend themselves, crime does not rise. When that right is infringed upon and access to guns for self defense is not allowed, crime soars. Look at the stats. I'm not making this up.
What do we really need to say about the gun crimes? Well, to start, where does the majority of it happen? In cities, where poverty is high. How much of the gun crimes happening in these United States is black-on-black crime? Before you throw down the racist card, I'm just going by the numbers. Really, how much gun crime happens in your small town America communities? How much gun crime happens in your farming communities? Those communities can be largely made up of any race in any geographical area? The fact of the matter is this, most gun crimes happen in urban environments where poverty runs rampant. Why aren't we banning poverty? That's a completely different topic and the welfare system has already been discussed.
Next point, the Second Amendment is the building block upon which all others are based. If you don't have the right to bear arms, how do you protect yourself against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion? How do you protect your rights against someone who is willing to use force to take them away if you don't have the necessary arms to combat that force? We can debate and use diplomacy all we want, but diplomacy doesn't work when your opponent doesn't want to use words, reason, and logic.
Some will say the Second Amendment applies to the militia...well, who made up the militias at the time the Constitution was written? The militia was a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency. Who were those citizens? All able-bodied males. If you look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it says this: "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." So, let's take a look at this...what protects the free state? The militia, right? Right. Who makes up the members of the militia? The individuals, the people, and for those people to do their necessary duty, keeping and bearing arms is necessary and shall not be infringed. So, considering the militia was all able-bodied males (and we'll allow for females since we have willing and able-bodied women who choose to serve), and arms are necessary to defend the free State, how can you take away the right to bear and keep arms from the individual?
Let me just say this, when is it ever a good idea to infringe upon the rights of others in an attempt to solve a problem? You can't call it a solution if it's infringing upon my rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among our inalienable rights. When you take away might right to self-defense, now you're subjecting me to being incapable of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government's job is not to give out rights or take them away. The government's job is to make sure no one is infringing upon my inalienable rights. The government is not responsible for taking care of me and making me pay taxes to do this duty when I am completely capable of doing it myself. I don't need the government to ban guns or legislate "reasonable" restrictions on them in an effort to provide security and safety for me. I especially don't need the government's services in that area of my life when they can't get the job done in the first place. Have gun crimes stopped? No. Has illegal gun trafficking stopped? No. So, in an effort to stop something they can't stop already, they're going to continue to whittle away at my rights as the law abiding citizen when I need that right to protect myself from the same people they're trying to stop. It's a paradox and for some reason, some people just don't get it. They think ammo registration and databases and microstamping, and gun bans, and more restrictions are going to stop the gun violence when nothing they've done this far is working. What they need to do is encourage more people to take up arms and provide their on security, protection, and self-defense. Through time, fewer criminals will survive their crimes and the rest who think about committing crimes will have to decide whether or not risking their lives to commit crime is worth it. Right now, it's a decision the law-abiding citizens must make and decide if not carrying a firearm for self-defense is worth it.
For me, the decision is simple. I keep fresh batteries in my smoke detectors and I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Do I expect to have a house fire every day? No. Do I buy health insurance? Yes. Do I have life insurance? Yes. Do I expect to get hurt, sick, or die every day? No. It's called precaution. It's called preparedness. It's called taking personal responsibility.
Let Freedom Ring.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Mexico invades the US
Why are we not hearing about this on the main stream media? Why are we not hearing our Presidential candidates discuss this? What the hell is going on that we aren't doing something about this?
Does anyone else care about this? If I were a citizen in the area, I would think very hard about engaging these invaders. I feel it is our duty as citizens to defend this country and if the military and boarder patrol isn't going to do anything about it, there are plenty of hunters and sportsmen in this country who are armed well enough to pick off a few drug smugglers and their Mexican military escort.
Does anyone else care about this? If I were a citizen in the area, I would think very hard about engaging these invaders. I feel it is our duty as citizens to defend this country and if the military and boarder patrol isn't going to do anything about it, there are plenty of hunters and sportsmen in this country who are armed well enough to pick off a few drug smugglers and their Mexican military escort.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
More exaggeration from Hillary
Hillary, in her campaign for a position as a senator from New York in 2000, vowed to create upwards of 250,000 jobs....well, it didn't happen. She then conveniently said it was because Al Gore wasn't elected president, but that wasn't part of the campaign in the first place.
She has recently claimed she will, if elected President, create 5,000,000 jobs. Yep, you saw all those zeros. That's only an increase of 2000% more jobs than she vowed to create in New York. If she failed to create 250,000 in New York, where in her mind does she think she can create 5,000,000 nationally in a period time where she wants to penalize prospering business owners for making too much money and businesses are already taking their efforts out of the country? How can you penalize those who create jobs and at the same time say you're going to be able to create 5,000,000?
Baffles my mind, but people do still vote for her. This leads me to what should probably just be a new post: What makes people fall for the jibber jabber Hillary and Barack are selling? (Coming Soon!)
She has recently claimed she will, if elected President, create 5,000,000 jobs. Yep, you saw all those zeros. That's only an increase of 2000% more jobs than she vowed to create in New York. If she failed to create 250,000 in New York, where in her mind does she think she can create 5,000,000 nationally in a period time where she wants to penalize prospering business owners for making too much money and businesses are already taking their efforts out of the country? How can you penalize those who create jobs and at the same time say you're going to be able to create 5,000,000?
Baffles my mind, but people do still vote for her. This leads me to what should probably just be a new post: What makes people fall for the jibber jabber Hillary and Barack are selling? (Coming Soon!)
Just a simple question on socialized healthcare: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
Where is the money going to come from? Mrs. Clinton has suggested that my income will be adjusted so that a small percentage will be used for premiums. Well, what is that percentage? Is it the same percentage for everyone? What about the grossly obese? What about the chain smokers? Do I have to pay the same premiums as those who have chosen to live higher-risk lifestyles? Is it an flat percentage of my income so that the more money I make, the more costly my insurance will be? I haven't heard any talk other than I will be paying a percentage and no discussion whatsoever on the choices people make about their health and how they live affecting their costs.
What about people who don't work? What about people who aren't on a salary? How will they pay their premiums?
What company is going to underwrite and handle the claims? Is this a violation of the anti-trust laws?
What's going to happen to all the companies who offer healthcare plans if the government is going to take it over? What will happen to those jobs?
Way too many questions have been unanswered on this issue, but I fear that if a Democrat is elected, they'll push for it anyway and "figure it out as they go."
What about people who don't work? What about people who aren't on a salary? How will they pay their premiums?
What company is going to underwrite and handle the claims? Is this a violation of the anti-trust laws?
What's going to happen to all the companies who offer healthcare plans if the government is going to take it over? What will happen to those jobs?
Way too many questions have been unanswered on this issue, but I fear that if a Democrat is elected, they'll push for it anyway and "figure it out as they go."
Aren't elected officials supposed to represent the people?
The last time I checked, when politicians run for office and their elected to a particular office, aren't they supposed to represent the people who voted for them?
I thought that's how it was supposed to work. I'm just trying to figure out where all the push for legislation around the country, and very specifically Pennsylvania, for more gun control and more restrictions is coming from. Outside of the two liberal cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), the rest of the state is made up of a lot of hunters, sportsmen, and generally freedom-enthusiasts. Since most people in PA seem to think more gun control and restrictions are not the answer, I want to know, specifically, why there is a constant stream of legislation attempted to be pushed through in favor of it.
The same can be said about government-controlled healthcare. Who wants the government "adjusting my income, automatic enrollment, or wage garnishments" according to Mrs. Clinton, or simply taking away our freedom to choose our levels of coverage?
I also want to start seeing a list of the politicians who are authoring, co-authoring, and supporting these bills because it should be public knowledge as to who is doing what, exactly, in their respective levels of government. These politicians need to be held accountable for their legislation and that information needs to be available to the public for evaluation come election time.
I was under the impression these people were elected to ensure my (the collective group of people who voted this individual in included) views, beliefs, and values were protected, preserved, and pushed through in legislation, not that these elected leaders can then blow in the wind on the issues and pull a popularity contest with the likes of Hollyweird or any other fad group.
Would anyone else be in favor having a documented list of where each candidate stands on each position and if that person was elected and ever voted against those said positions, he/she could be removed from their office? There's simply no accountability to the public these people represent and that has to change.
I thought that's how it was supposed to work. I'm just trying to figure out where all the push for legislation around the country, and very specifically Pennsylvania, for more gun control and more restrictions is coming from. Outside of the two liberal cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), the rest of the state is made up of a lot of hunters, sportsmen, and generally freedom-enthusiasts. Since most people in PA seem to think more gun control and restrictions are not the answer, I want to know, specifically, why there is a constant stream of legislation attempted to be pushed through in favor of it.
The same can be said about government-controlled healthcare. Who wants the government "adjusting my income, automatic enrollment, or wage garnishments" according to Mrs. Clinton, or simply taking away our freedom to choose our levels of coverage?
I also want to start seeing a list of the politicians who are authoring, co-authoring, and supporting these bills because it should be public knowledge as to who is doing what, exactly, in their respective levels of government. These politicians need to be held accountable for their legislation and that information needs to be available to the public for evaluation come election time.
I was under the impression these people were elected to ensure my (the collective group of people who voted this individual in included) views, beliefs, and values were protected, preserved, and pushed through in legislation, not that these elected leaders can then blow in the wind on the issues and pull a popularity contest with the likes of Hollyweird or any other fad group.
Would anyone else be in favor having a documented list of where each candidate stands on each position and if that person was elected and ever voted against those said positions, he/she could be removed from their office? There's simply no accountability to the public these people represent and that has to change.
A Challenging Question for Liberals
Generally speaking, do you know anyone who thinks the government makes decisions in our best interests? Personally, I don't believe the government (local, state, or federal) has my best interest in mind when writing and pushing legislation. The government has become more and more of a self-proclaimed babysitter or nanny to the population and it's coming at the cost of our individual freedoms.
So, to the point...ask your liberal friends, or any liberal for that matter, if they trust the government to do what's best for us as the people they represent? If the answer is anything but a strong "Yes! Absolutely!" then you need to ask these people why they have any desire whatsoever to vote for a candidate (either one, Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama) who wishes to have more control over our lives and expand the number of decisions made for you. They both want to increase taxes taking more of your income away from you to spend how they see fit. That eliminates just a little bit more of your freedom to choose where to spend your money. They want to develop a program for socialized national healthcare where they take away your freedom to choose whether or not to have insurance at all, let alone your freedom to choose which company to support and which plan to choose. They want to take away your firearms in the name of ending gun violence, but in reality, they're taking away our ability to hunt and participate in shooting competitions and most importantly, our right to self defense. They want to give amnesty to a large number of individuals who come here to take money out of our economy in favor of sending it back "home" where they came from and at the same time, they want all the social welfare programs, benefits, and perks of being a true, legitimate citizen. These candidates want to basically penalize the system of free enterprise by imposing penalties and harsher taxes on those who are successful financially. They want to rally the workers to gang up against the business owner because the business owner is wealthy and successful. The problem with penalizing the ownership is when you take their profits away, they don't expand their businesses. When they don't expand the business, new jobs aren't created and if you're not growing, usually in the business world, you're dying. When the business is dying, jobs go away resulting in more people on the welfare system becoming dependent upon the government to take care of them.
I've been listening to suggestions that the government should be buying up mortgages to save them from foreclosure to protect the lending institutions. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government to own my house. If they do, they can take it away or send in any inspection team they want and there goes my rights to privacy. If I wanted to live in housing the government owned, I'd be poor and move in with the others who can't/won't make it on their own.
So, if you value the freedom to make your own choices and not being told which insurance you have to have, how much of your allowance you're allowed to bring home to your family, whether or not you may defend your family with a firearm, or pretty much anything else for that matter, why would you even consider voting for a Democratic candidate?
Do you trust your government? Do you want the government to be your nanny?
So, to the point...ask your liberal friends, or any liberal for that matter, if they trust the government to do what's best for us as the people they represent? If the answer is anything but a strong "Yes! Absolutely!" then you need to ask these people why they have any desire whatsoever to vote for a candidate (either one, Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama) who wishes to have more control over our lives and expand the number of decisions made for you. They both want to increase taxes taking more of your income away from you to spend how they see fit. That eliminates just a little bit more of your freedom to choose where to spend your money. They want to develop a program for socialized national healthcare where they take away your freedom to choose whether or not to have insurance at all, let alone your freedom to choose which company to support and which plan to choose. They want to take away your firearms in the name of ending gun violence, but in reality, they're taking away our ability to hunt and participate in shooting competitions and most importantly, our right to self defense. They want to give amnesty to a large number of individuals who come here to take money out of our economy in favor of sending it back "home" where they came from and at the same time, they want all the social welfare programs, benefits, and perks of being a true, legitimate citizen. These candidates want to basically penalize the system of free enterprise by imposing penalties and harsher taxes on those who are successful financially. They want to rally the workers to gang up against the business owner because the business owner is wealthy and successful. The problem with penalizing the ownership is when you take their profits away, they don't expand their businesses. When they don't expand the business, new jobs aren't created and if you're not growing, usually in the business world, you're dying. When the business is dying, jobs go away resulting in more people on the welfare system becoming dependent upon the government to take care of them.
I've been listening to suggestions that the government should be buying up mortgages to save them from foreclosure to protect the lending institutions. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government to own my house. If they do, they can take it away or send in any inspection team they want and there goes my rights to privacy. If I wanted to live in housing the government owned, I'd be poor and move in with the others who can't/won't make it on their own.
So, if you value the freedom to make your own choices and not being told which insurance you have to have, how much of your allowance you're allowed to bring home to your family, whether or not you may defend your family with a firearm, or pretty much anything else for that matter, why would you even consider voting for a Democratic candidate?
Do you trust your government? Do you want the government to be your nanny?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
