Conservative Political and Social Issues
Well Happy New Year to you and yours Chris 1I have known of this Patriot as well and thank you for posting it!I printed out this painting before and hangs above my home comp. as I type. I tried at work (shared comp.) but alas 'union' peeps not the company said 'NO WAY'. But thanks agin from a Conservative Idealogue for posting this.
Thank You a Great way to Start New Year! Now I will attempt to get this video to send out to Freinds and Realatives! Thanks Again!
Even though the Senate passed the healthcare bill early on Christmas Eve, and despite a recent uptick in support for the overhaul, most Americans remain skeptical about the most sweeping reform of the healthcare system since 1965. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will take effect over the next 10 years and cost $871 billion, would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million and expand the Medicaid program that covers the nation’s poorest. It also provides low and moderate-income families with subsidies to buy insurance, and offers tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage, according to media reports. However, in a bid to shore up the fragile partisan consensus behind the bill, the Democratic leaders dropped the public insurance option and included restrictions on abortion coverage against the wishes of most liberals. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) summarized the outcome by saying that "this bill is not a perfect fix to our healthcare problems, but it will put us on the path to a stable and secure healthcare system," while Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky vowed his caucus will continue to oppose the legislation. Against that backdrop, two recent polls suggest that most Americans disapprove of the proposal. Specifically, the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll puts the number of opponents at 56 percent of respondents, while the survey released by Quinnipiac University estimates 53 percent have an unfavorable view of the bill. Early next year, Congress will begin its task merging the Senate bill with the $1.1 trillion measure approved by the House of Representatives.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledged on Monday that the nation’s aviation security system failed after allowing a Nigerian man armed with explosives to board a flight bound for Detroit. The statement came not long after Napolitano made a widely criticized assertion on CNN that the "system has worked."Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, is now in custody after allegedly hiding an explosive and attempting to detonate it on a Northwest Airlines flight that was coming from Amsterdam. According to the Associated Press (AP), the device malfunctioned and burst into flames, only harming the suspect. Criticism of security measures has begun to mount due to the fact that Abdulmutallab was on a terrorist "watch list" yet managed to successfully pass through two security checkpoints with the explosive on his person. The suspect, who was not on the "no-fly" list, purchased the ticket with cash and checked no luggage, according to The New York Times. Abdulmutallab’s father alerted the American embassy in Nigeria in October that his son had developed radical views and had disappeared, possibly to Yemen. Officials did not revoke the suspect’s visa, which was good through June 2010. Napolitano’s original comments have received sharp criticism from members of the GOP including Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee."It’s not reassuring when the secretary of Homeland Security says the system worked," King said, quoted by the AP. "It failed in every respect."On Sunday, President Obama ordered a review of the aviation security system.
Chris, i guess you posted the video from youtube. i cannot view it since youtube is banned in Turkey. Thanks for your New year wishes. Happy new years.loves.yağmur
My favorite post of 2009: A Modest Proposal, 2009 EditionDECEMBER 31, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEYLadies and gentlemen, I have discovered an unfair disparity in access to a vital resource based on the economic condition of the consumer. This disparity is not just egregious, but it threatens the very core of our American way of life. People routinely get denied adequate and competent service on the basis of their ability to pay, even though they have a right to it, while the rich eat up all the resources with their ability to access the best and brightest in the field. And in the interest of fairness, the federal government needs to find a solution and impose it on the industry as a whole.I refer, of course, to legal representation.Oh, sure, in an emergency, the government will foot the bill for a public defender to represent the poor and indigent, but that’s hardly a comfort to those who needed a lawyer before getting into the emergency condition in the first place. Besides, while we have many dedicated public defenders, it’s hardly a news flash that the wealthy can afford much better representation and have a much better chance of prevailing in court in criminal cases. When the poor, working class, and middle class end up in that emergency situation, they can lose their homes and property to pay for decent legal care — and that shouldn’t happen in America, should it?After all, unlike health care, Americans actually do have a Constitutional right to legal representation in court. Some will scoff and say the lack of a lawyer, or a bad lawyer, can’t cause your death. Those critics may want to talk with the inmates who got freed from Death Row and lifetime prison sentences after having mediocre attorneys lose cases when the defendant was really innocent. Bad or nonexistent legal representation can take years off of your life, and can definitely get you killed.Even beyond that, though, the wealthy and connected have access to a much wider range of legal services than even the middle class can afford. Estate planning, trust funds, tax shelters — all of these can be expertly provided to those with the resources to afford them, while other Americans get second-class status in our legal system. For those who aspire to egalitarianism of result, this arrangement should be such an affront that it demands real action — now.I propose that the government impose a single-payer system on the legal profession. Instead of charging private fees, all attorneys would have to send their bills to LegalCare, a new agency in the federal government. Because the government can bargain collectively, they can impose rational fees for legal services instead of the exorbitant billing fees attorneys now charge. Three hundred dollars an hour? Thing of the past. Everyone knows that the government can control costs through price-setting; now we can see this process applied to the legal system, where the government has a large interest in seeing cost savings.How will we pay for LegalCare? I take a page from the House surtax method here, which will disproportionately hit doctors in a wide variety of disciplines. In this case, I propose a 5.4% surtax on lawyers, judges, lobbyists, and political officeholders at the state and federal level. They’re the ones who have enriched themselves through this inequity in the legal system. After all, why should we all have to pay for the single-payer legal system when we can penalize lawyers instead?
Part 2/2Now, this will have some impact on the legal-services market. On the downside, we’ll have fewer attorneys. Law schools will get a lot less competitive as students avoid the law and the limited amount of money available through LegalCare, and existing attorneys may leave the profession as well as they fail to make enough money from the price-controlled compensation they get from the government. All this will mean longer wait times and rationing of services as people flood attorneys’ offices to demand services disconnected from the actual cost to provide them. It may take a couple of years to get a will done, so start when you’re young.On the plus side, we’ll have fewer attorneys. And politicians! Best of all, everyone will get the same level of legal care regardless of their ability to pay, thanks to LegalCare and the government-imposed rationing of a resource to which we have a right to access at any time we want, for any reason we want.
It's a Wonderful Life Working for the GovernmentDecember 31, 2009 It looks like a happy new year for you - if you're a public employee.That's the takeaway from a recent Rasmussen poll that shows that 46% of government employees say the economy is getting better, while just 31% say it's getting worse. In contrast, 32% of those with private-sector jobs say the economy is getting better, while 49% say it is getting worse.Nearly half, 44%, of government employees rate their personal finances as good or excellent. Only 33% of private-sector employees do.It sounds like public- and private-sector employees are looking at different Americas. And they are.Private-sector employment peaked at 115.8 million in December 2007, when the recession officially began. It was down to 108.5 million last November. That's a 6% decline.Public-sector employment peaked at 22.6 million in August 2008. It fell a bit in 2009, then rebounded back to 22.5 million in November. That's less than a 1% decline.This is not an accident - it is the result of deliberate public policy. About 1/3 of the $787 million stimulus package passed in February 2009 was directed at state and local governments, which have been facing declining revenues and are, mostly, required to balance their budgets.The policy aim, say Dems, was to maintain public services and aid. The political aim, although Dems don't say so, was to maintain public-sector jobs - and the flow of union dues to the public-employee unions that represent almost 40% of public-sector workers.Those unions in turn have contributed generously to Democrats. SEIU head Andy Stern, the most frequent non-government visitor to the Obama White House, has boasted that his union steered $60 million to Dems in the 2008 cycle. The total union contribution to Dems has been estimated at $400 million.In effect, some significant portion of the stimulus package can be regarded as taxpayer funding of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, no Republicans need apply.One must concede that there is something to the argument that maintaining government spending levels helps people in need and provides essential public services. Something, but not everything.For it's more difficult to cut waste and unnecessary spending from government agencies than from private-sector businesses.As Charles Peters, founder of the neoliberal Washington Monthly, noted years ago, when government is ordered to cut spending, it does things like closing the Washington Monument to visitors. Tourists from the 50 states and 435 congressional districts quickly squawk to their members of Congress, and the spending cuts are rescinded.
When businesses must cut, they do so with an eye to profits -- which is to say with an eye to providing consumers with goods and services they need enough to be willing to pay for. They tend to lay off unproductive employees while striving to retain productive ones.Governments, restrained by civil service rules and often by union contracts, do not have similar incentives.As for the argument that maintaining government payrolls pumps money into the private-sector economy - well, where does that government money come from? From private-sector employees and employers or from those who buy government bonds and who must be repaid by government in the future.At some point - and this already has occurred in much of Western Europe - public-sector spending tends to choke off private-sector growth. America's current high unemployment levels have been commonplace in much of Western Europe for the last 25 years.The question now is whether they will become commonplace in the United States in the decade ahead. The decision by the Barack Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to hold public-sector employees in place while the private sector is gravely weakened has the potential to put us on that trajectory.The unemployment data show that this recession has had a much greater impact on private-sector workers than on public employees, on men than on women, on blue-collar workers than on white-collar employees.This seems not to have gone unnoticed. Dems have been surprised that so many downscale voters oppose their big-spending programs. Maybe many of those voters have noticed how much of that spending has gone to public-sector union members, leaving the rest of America with a less-than-happy new year.
Executive Order: International Police Granted Full Immunity in US and Not Subject to FOIA Requestsby Larry O'Connorhttp://biggovernment.com/2010/01/01/executive-order-international-police-granted-full-immunity-in-us-and-not-subject-to-foia-requests/In 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order which gave permission to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to operate within the boundaries of the United States. Reagan’s EO put INTERPOL under the same basic guidelines as the CIA, FBI, ATF and other Federal law enforcement agencies.Two weeks ago, without any announcement, debate, discussion or inquiry from journalists charged with “speaking truth to power” President Obama issued an amendment to this EO. The amendment removed part of Reagan’s order that kept INTERPOL from having full diplomatic immunity while operating within the United States. In other words: Under Reagan and right up until two weeks ago, INTERPOL was authorized to operate within the USA but they did not have full diplomatic immunity and had to adhere to certain laws set forth for investigative agencies. Laws that prohibit authorities from violating our constitutionally protected rights.This story has begun to make the rounds at some other blogs and web sites. Some scream about the on-set of the New World Order, some merely question the timing, motives and logic behind such a move while we are still fighting foreign wars and under threat of attack from Al Qaeda and other international terrorist bodies. I certainly don’t walk down the New World Order/One World Government path, I don’t look good in tin-foil hats… but, I do wonder why this move was made so quietly and why the White House Press Corps has not made any hay about it.I also wonder why my friends on the left, who screamed from the rooftops about phone companies conducting analysis of phone calls made from the US to known over-seas terrorists, about members of the Saudi family being allowed to leave the country in the days following 9/11, about the EVILS of the Patriot Act and how it would lead to the stripping of basic civil rights to anyone checking out a book in a library. I wonder how they feel about the President granting permission to an international organization to operate within our borders under full diplomatic immunity.One other tasty tidbit: Due to the amended language created by President Obama, INTERPOL is now, no longer subject to Freedom of Information Act Inquiries.I wonder if during his vacation in Hawaii if one of the intrepid reporters could ask the President:“Mr. President, is it true that due to your amendment to Executive Order 12425, INTERPOL may break into a home without a warrant, seize private property of a US citizen, hold a citizen for questioning without the right of legal representation and not be subject to any legal or criminal repercussion?”I’d really like them to ask that question. Wouldn’t you?
Thank God Bruce gave up on these blogs. This will be a good year watching these heathen anti-Christian liberals fail. Don't let Bruce push you around on this blog.
Sue, Bruce is still visiting this blog, have no doubts about it. He is posting on some of the older ones hoping that nobody is monitoring them, but he's a total idiot.Chris, I don't know if you are using that tracker that I sent to you, but let me know if you need the code again and I can send it. Then you can monitor whenever Brucetard is visiting your site, it's pretty humorous to see how obsessed he is.
I got it John but I still think it's creepy. I'm trying to let this blog be as free as possible. It's the way I'd like to see the American govt. So far it's working but it take everyone to make it work. In this new year I would like to see more people posting their thoughts. I even allow Anonymous for those who would like to use it.
How much did the auto industry change in 2009? Here are some telling numbers.U.S. DOWN, CHINA UP9.4 million: Auto sales in the U.S. in 2009 (January through November)12.3 million: Auto sales in the U.S., January to November 200812 million plus: Auto sales in China, January to November 200917.3 million: Auto sales in the U.S. in 2001JOB WOES (figures from November)658,000: Auto industry jobs in 2009809,000: Auto industry jobs in 20081.32 million: Auto industry jobs in 1999SHRINKING GOLIATHFour: Number of GM brands planned by 2010Eight: Number of GM brands at start of 2009235,000: General Motors global work force in 2009853,000: General Motors global work force in 197975 cents: General Motors closing share price on May 29, 2009, last day of trading before bankruptcy$69: General Motors closing share price on May 28, 1999Three: Total GM CEOs in 2009Three: Total GM CEOs from 1990 to 2008GOVERNMENT MOTORS$80.7 billion: Total amount of government loans to auto companies (GM, Chrysler, GMAC and Chrysler Financial)$2.5 billion: Amount repaid by late December60.8 percent: Government's GM stake9.8 percent: Government's Chrysler stake0 percent: Government's Ford stakeCLUNKERS$2.85 billion: Total value of Cash for Clunkers rebates9.2 mpg: Average increase in fuel efficiency under Clunkers15,013: Toyota Prius hybrid cars sold under program16,263: Ford F-150 pickup trucks sold under the programOne: Limousine traded inTHEY'LL GET YOU WITH THE FEES$1.55 billion: Estimated auto industry bankruptcy fees (GM and Chrysler's attorneys, advisers, others)$82.29 billion: GM assets at time of bankruptcy filing$457 million: GM market value on last trading day before Chapter 11 filingSALES ACCELERATE, DECELERATE161,819, up 17 percent: Ford Fusion mid-size sedan sales from January to November, an increase over 2008283,243, down 34 percent: Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck sales from January to November, a decrease from 2008GAS OR ELECTRIC?365,416: Ford F-Series pickup trucks sold in U.S. in 2009, through NovemberZero: Plug-in gas-electric hybrid vehicles sold in U.S. by major automakers in 2009, through NovemberAt least 12: Number of manufacturers planning plug-in gas-electric vehicle sales in the U.S. by 2013INTO THE ROUGHFive: PGA golf tournaments sponsored by GM in 2001Zero: PGA golf tournaments GM plans to sponsor in 2010One: Number of GM-owned golf courses for sale
its hard to keep up on the blog. the comments go everywhere and most are just op-ed bombs not peoples own opinions. Perhaps you could restrict that alittle. Christopher, you call yourself a "Conservative Idealogue"? well my friend you are and its not a good thing.
Joe you can just go past them if you like. They don't bother me too much but then again they don't pick apart my conservative views.
Dude, i try to. They don't pick apart my views. most of it is merely demagoguing.
Hey JoeC I thought We were suppose to share Different Opinions and Comments! Dont use Op-Eds Dont know How. Compared to Bruce your Opinions are YOURS and at least there can be a Sharing of Opinions which is ONE Freedom we must NEVER Lose!Political views we may never agree on but a OPEN mind is a Terrible thing to LOSE!
al, never accused you of using op-eds. Bruce is as bad an op-ed bomber as the rest.
Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.