My Response on Sequestration and No Budgets

(Facebook buddy), you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts

Who’s responsible for sequestration?

The white house proposed the idea of sequestration; the president signed the budget control act that included sequestration; the president has said “that sequestration would not happen;” the president has spent more time with Tiger Woods on the golf course then with congressional leaders on how to prevent sequestration; the president has valued campaigning, fund raising, and staged photo ops with first responder “human shields” over leading the fight on preventing sequestration.

Why was sequestration attractive to him?

• It was part of a deal that allowed him to avoid another debt ceiling fight and raising the debit ceiling, before the election
• He welcomed the opportunity of blackmailing republicans into making/forcing a budget deficit deal knowing the prospect of deep military cuts (the military being a GOP constituency) that would occur if sequestration were triggered would be abhorrent to them 
  

To be honest with you, both parties have long been responsible for this mess, and I welcome government cutting in whatever form it takes – including the sequestration. As long as this “shared sacrifice” is distributed across ALL government, and not just the DOD. Thanks to the voting records of “low information” lemming/sheeple voters, if the sequestration kicks in, I’ll be kissing away at least 22 percent of my income – and I’m hardly part of the wealthy who, it’s expected, is to pay their “fair share.”

Who has and hasn’t passed a budget?

The republican controlled house offered five budgets in 2012 including one “based on President Barack Obama 2013 spending blueprint” that were all turned down by the democratically controlled senate. Despite the democrats holding majorities in congress and the White House most of the last six years, they have failed – they voted down the President’s last budget 97-0; Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) tried to move a budget plan this year, and was "shut down" by Reid; and they even refuse to consider a budget based on the president’s bipartisan Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission, which blends revenue increases and spending cuts to tackle the deficit.

The senate has failed to offer their own budget in over three years/1,200 days even though they are legally required to do so and this act is one of its most basic, fundamental tasks

A Friend's Facebook Response to Rand Paul

....."The sequester is not Obama's fault. Lawmakers have failed to pass a budget since 2009. They drafted the legislation he signed. They are the ones who kicked it down the road from January 1 to March 1. They are the ones that have not tried to resolve the budget crisis. They are the ones that went on vacation this week rather than trying to solve the issue. This is 100% a congressional problem. Republicans and the Tea Party faithful can try and spin it any way they like, but there is no way this is the president's fault....."

-- from a buddy on Facebook

Who's to Blame for this Mess?

‎"The sequester was [Obama's] idea. He signed it into law. He needs to take responsibility and he needs to act responsibly and we've given him a list of cuts that he could do without laying off anybody."

--Sen. Rand Paul 'On the Record' last night with Greta Van Susteren >> http://tinyurl.com/bbo7zkw

ABC Bans its Reporters from Wearing Flag Lapel Pins

Example below collected via email in October 2001,

Dear friend,

Yesterday, the brass at ABC News issued orders forbidding reporters to wear lapel pin American flags or other patriotic insignia. Their reasoning was that ABC should remain neutral about "causes". Since when is support for preventing our death & destruction some sort of a cause? Since when is patriotism to be discouraged. I urge you to boycott ABC and its sponsors and affiliates.

Please forward this to as many as you can.

How can ABC, which according to snopes.com has had this policy since 9/11, honestly say the policy is to make their reporting objective and professional when they are so incredibly bias towards certain presidential candidates and political causes? It's this double standard, their obvious biases, that makes me think their "no flag pin" policy is motivated not by "objectivity" but for political reasons.

I can actually see ABC's point, that some viewers may respond hysterically to a journalist/commentator wearing a flag pin, but c'mon, if I saw a Canadian newscaster wearing a pin of his country, or a Spaniard wearing one of theirs, I wouldn't think they were a government spokesperson.

After all, we're Americans/Canadians (or other free country), individual journalists should have the freedom to follow their own conscience on a decision like this.

Taxing the "Rich"

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the
bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve.

Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to
reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80..

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20, ‘declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved
a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man.. ‘Why should he get
$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison.. ‘We
didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so
the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to
pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors,
is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get
the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed !
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible !

Theodore Roosevelt's Ideas on Immigration

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

New Pledge of Allegiance

The following poem prayer was penned by an anonymous author, often contributed to a 15 year old kid somewhere. Regardless of its source, I love it. Don't get me wrong. I support the concept of separation of church and state -- you know, preventing the government from controlling churches. No worry about the government or the politically correct crowd trying to crush the spirit of the "golden rule" or that of the 10 Commandments here on my blog site though!

NEW School prayer :
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now. Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice. !
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state. We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks..
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong. We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd. It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

Today's quote is from a guy named Donald Foster. He is a professor at Vassar College. He's a "literary analyst" who discovered a "long lost poem" was penned by Shakespeare and that Joe Klein was the author of "Primary Colors" by analyzing their writing styles and idiosyncrasies. Stuff like that is "write" down my alley!

No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar
- Donald Foster

Political Correctness Run Amok

This is crazy! How much more can I take? Is our society becoming completely unhinged? Can the term "black hole" really be misconstrued?