Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, you know the guy who wants Texas to secede from the Union, again is a Tenther, according to one of his television ads. Perry is running for re-election.
What is a Tenther, if you don't already know are people (?) and/or organizations which believe in the strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Basically the Tenthers do not want to be told by the Federal government what to do in any form unless it is specifically outlined in the Constitution. The fact that the US Supreme Court has upheld any attacks from the states seems to have been missed by these folks. The problem for the states is a simple one, but wrought with all kinds of problems, like political suicide. The Federal government cannot make any state do anything, not covered by the Constitution, except in cases where the states accept Federal money for anything. Basically speaking if a state university accepts Federal funding for anything, that funding will be conditional on the university following all Federal rules. Many Federal funding or grants have strings attached, like you have to actually do what you are supposed to with the money, under Federal rules. An example might be a state accepts Federal matching funds to build a new runway at DFW. The Federal rules may say that the work must be done by the lowest bidder and have a certain percentage of union jobs directly attached. Now since the Feds are paying 90% of the cost, it makes sense they can make the rules, right?
What Tenthers want is the Feds to hand them basically a blank check to do whatever they want, how they want without Federal rules.
Can you imagine what would have happened to the Economic Stimulus money if the Feds just wrote a blank check to each state?
Look, if you are a state that has been devastated by some disaster and you go to your Uncle Sam for a bailout, does that Uncle not have a right to tell you how the money is going to be spent? You go to your dad and ask for money to buy a car and you blow it on a ski boat, I am certain that will be the last time he gives you money.
Tenthers are states rights advocates. They bitch and complain about the Federal money coming into their states with strings attached. They want the Feds to just cut a check. Remember we are talking about politicians with a blank check, a really really big one. Yet, who shows up at the ribbon cutting ceremony? The same folks who 'claim' they don't want it in the first place.
Gov. Perry, I have one word of advice. If you are a real Tenther, firmly believe as your ads say, then it's simple. Refuse ALL Federal money for EVERYTHING. That is the only way you could be happy because without accepting the money, the Feds have no leverage. Just Say No to them. Accept no money, then the strings are cut. Honestly, I don't think you have the courage to stand by your own rhetoric.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Right bear arms and the right to light 'em up.
Ah the Second Amendment, the one most likely to be misinterpreted, misunderstood or not even read at all by those spouting their 'right to bear arms' rationale.
Consider this article.... At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms...Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas. The article goes on to explain that there are people who want to exercise their alleged right to bear arms, even in a public place and private property. Now, I don't know about you but I would find someone coming into any establishment carrying a firearm just a little unnerving. I mean, what is your first thought? Law Enforcement? Maybe. Criminal? Maybe. A jerk acting 'big'? Maybe. Law abiding citizen showing off his weapon just to prove a point? Not likely. I mean, what do we know about this person? Does this person even have the 'right' to carry a weapon like that? What do you do, call the Police and have them come and check the guy out? How would the Police handle a person carrying a weapon into say, a Starbucks and a patron calls 911? Are we not asking for trouble? If carrying a weapon becomes common-place, there won't be enough Police to investigate these kinds of calls, so I would imagine that criminal would pick up on this and figure, why not? It's so commonplace that now one would even question it. Is there a danger looming? I think so.
Interestingly, I cannot walk into a public or private place and light up a cigarette in most places in this country. Hell, I cannot smoke where I live, yet cigarettes are legal and regulated with more stringent rules than firearms. In fact cigarettes are taxed by far greater than firearms and firearm supplies. Yet both are 'legal'. Oddly, I could carry a Bushmaster into a Starbucks and that would be okay, but walk in with the weapon and fire up a cigarette, well we all know what would happen. The question remains, which is more threatening? 33% of those folks would not be intimidated or threatened by me lighting up. How many of the people in a Starbucks would feel intimidated or threatened or maybe a little scared by the sight of a weapon that 'looks' like an assault rifle?
Food for thought.
Oh, the Second Amendment 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."
Now for an example of what was considered a 'well regulated militia'.
An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757:
"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes.
Now, as many learned people know, the National Guard replaced the state militias. However if the Second Amendment folks would rather use contemporary, for the time interpretation of a militia and the armaments requirements, I am all for it. I particularily like the twenty lashes part.
Consider this article.... At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms...Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas. The article goes on to explain that there are people who want to exercise their alleged right to bear arms, even in a public place and private property. Now, I don't know about you but I would find someone coming into any establishment carrying a firearm just a little unnerving. I mean, what is your first thought? Law Enforcement? Maybe. Criminal? Maybe. A jerk acting 'big'? Maybe. Law abiding citizen showing off his weapon just to prove a point? Not likely. I mean, what do we know about this person? Does this person even have the 'right' to carry a weapon like that? What do you do, call the Police and have them come and check the guy out? How would the Police handle a person carrying a weapon into say, a Starbucks and a patron calls 911? Are we not asking for trouble? If carrying a weapon becomes common-place, there won't be enough Police to investigate these kinds of calls, so I would imagine that criminal would pick up on this and figure, why not? It's so commonplace that now one would even question it. Is there a danger looming? I think so.
Interestingly, I cannot walk into a public or private place and light up a cigarette in most places in this country. Hell, I cannot smoke where I live, yet cigarettes are legal and regulated with more stringent rules than firearms. In fact cigarettes are taxed by far greater than firearms and firearm supplies. Yet both are 'legal'. Oddly, I could carry a Bushmaster into a Starbucks and that would be okay, but walk in with the weapon and fire up a cigarette, well we all know what would happen. The question remains, which is more threatening? 33% of those folks would not be intimidated or threatened by me lighting up. How many of the people in a Starbucks would feel intimidated or threatened or maybe a little scared by the sight of a weapon that 'looks' like an assault rifle?
Food for thought.
Oh, the Second Amendment 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."
Now for an example of what was considered a 'well regulated militia'.
An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757:
"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes.
Now, as many learned people know, the National Guard replaced the state militias. However if the Second Amendment folks would rather use contemporary, for the time interpretation of a militia and the armaments requirements, I am all for it. I particularily like the twenty lashes part.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Health Care Addendum
Much was made on Thursday by the Republic Party that the majority of Americans dislike the Health Care Reform Bill approved by both the Senate and the House. The President noted that when asked, the public approved of the individual parts of the bills by an overwhelming majority. What the Republic Party said is essentially true as well as what the President said, if you base your vote on polls rather than by what is right. The one thing the Republic folks failed to mention and my to my chagrin, neither did the Democrats, that the VAST majority of the American people favour a public option, which the Republic Party will never agree to, ever.
My friends, this is a representative democracy. We elect our lawmakers to promulgate bills and laws in the interests of us all. We surrender our perceived right to have direct voting by the public on national issues. Think of it this way, if the American people had a direct vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do you really think that it would have been approved by the American people? No it would not have. The idea of having a representative democracy is to ensure that in most cases, the government will do the right thing, even if it is not popular or approved by the majority of the population.
My friends, this is a representative democracy. We elect our lawmakers to promulgate bills and laws in the interests of us all. We surrender our perceived right to have direct voting by the public on national issues. Think of it this way, if the American people had a direct vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do you really think that it would have been approved by the American people? No it would not have. The idea of having a representative democracy is to ensure that in most cases, the government will do the right thing, even if it is not popular or approved by the majority of the population.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Health Care Reform Bill will become law, like it or not.
It is clear to me that the Republic Party is getting the amendments they added to the Senate's version of health care reform. 70% of what they want is in the bill.
So there is NO misunderstanding, the Senate Bill has already been passed with 60 votes for, a super-majority. The House passed their bill with a simple majority. Much has been made about reconciliation, a process where Senate bills are passed with a simple majority, as is stated in the Constitution. Having said all that, the process now is simple. The House now passes the Senate Bill as it stands. It goes to the President for his signature and becomes law.
The deal being struck between the House and the Senate is simple also. The House passes the Senate Bill by majority vote and then the House presents a bill to make adjustments to the Senate bill which has become law, to remove the parts of the bill which the House finds objectionable. The bill then goes to the Senate and under reconciliation, a majority vote, the changes are implemented. That bill then goes to the President for his signature into law.
Okay, do we all understand now?
The President gave the Republic representative's ample opportunity to accept the reality of the situation and offered them the chance to be part of the process. The answer was, start over and take baby steps. The Republic Party has had ample opportunity over the years to do just that, take the baby steps and chose not to. Oh, I am sorry..I am wrong. The Republic Party did pass legislation to create the unfunded Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug plan. I have Part D and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. One of the parts of that law protected the drug companies from any negotiations to save the government money, in other words, the government pays whatever the drug companies want to charge for they drugs and also banned the re-importation of drugs from Canada, the same ones we have here but at a lower cost. It is an interesting note to point out that the VA is mandated to negotiate with the drug companies for the best price, but not Medicare. This new health care plan closes the donut-hole in part D and requires negotiating for the best price. Did I mention that the Part D law was passed by the Republic Party by a majority vote, by way of reconciliation? The same reconciliation procedure that the Republic party is complaining about now against the Democrats?
As the President said, this bill will become law and let the voters decide in November who was right.
So there is NO misunderstanding, the Senate Bill has already been passed with 60 votes for, a super-majority. The House passed their bill with a simple majority. Much has been made about reconciliation, a process where Senate bills are passed with a simple majority, as is stated in the Constitution. Having said all that, the process now is simple. The House now passes the Senate Bill as it stands. It goes to the President for his signature and becomes law.
The deal being struck between the House and the Senate is simple also. The House passes the Senate Bill by majority vote and then the House presents a bill to make adjustments to the Senate bill which has become law, to remove the parts of the bill which the House finds objectionable. The bill then goes to the Senate and under reconciliation, a majority vote, the changes are implemented. That bill then goes to the President for his signature into law.
Okay, do we all understand now?
The President gave the Republic representative's ample opportunity to accept the reality of the situation and offered them the chance to be part of the process. The answer was, start over and take baby steps. The Republic Party has had ample opportunity over the years to do just that, take the baby steps and chose not to. Oh, I am sorry..I am wrong. The Republic Party did pass legislation to create the unfunded Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug plan. I have Part D and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. One of the parts of that law protected the drug companies from any negotiations to save the government money, in other words, the government pays whatever the drug companies want to charge for they drugs and also banned the re-importation of drugs from Canada, the same ones we have here but at a lower cost. It is an interesting note to point out that the VA is mandated to negotiate with the drug companies for the best price, but not Medicare. This new health care plan closes the donut-hole in part D and requires negotiating for the best price. Did I mention that the Part D law was passed by the Republic Party by a majority vote, by way of reconciliation? The same reconciliation procedure that the Republic party is complaining about now against the Democrats?
As the President said, this bill will become law and let the voters decide in November who was right.
A solution for Tea Baggers/Republic Party
Much has been made lately from the right about less Federal government in our lives. Less is best. Yesterday's Health Care Summit gave me some ideas which I have taken to heart. Personally, I am middle of the road, I choose my own fights and am not locked into to any specific ideology. I like to think I have a brain and can sort out what I think is right for myself. I do not considered myself brainwashed and I do entertain alternative points of view as long as there is a free expression of ideas based upon thought.
There are those folks out there who actually believe what they say without giving what they say any rational thought. One day, I was having a conversation with someone who every time he said the President's name, he followed it by the phrase, "the Muslim". Clearly there is no opportunity here to have a reasonable, let alone rational conversation with a person like this. There is a certain segment in our society that really believes the lies as some sort of truth. Every few days I receive emails from a gentleman who is loosely aligned with the 9th Cav Association I belong to. He has this penchant for attacking the health care plane as proposed by Congress. His latest tirade is about the loss of Social Security health benefits, which anyone who has half a brain knows is just not true. He relies on his own personal network of rightists to profess their truth, as they 'see' it. When I was in the Army, years ago you find this sort of person everywhere. Lifer's we called them. Now, I am not saying that they don't have some valid issues to expound upon, rather there is no way to have a rational conversation with them since they are 'believers' in their own right.
Tenther's and Birther's other Tea Baggers are much the same, you cannot possibly have a free exchange of ideas with them, either because they are truly ignorant or they don't like the idea of paying their fair share for the freedoms we all enjoy. No one likes the idea of deficit spending, unless you consider your car payment or house payment or credit card payment as a form of deficit spending, which they are. I personally have no credit cards, mortgage or car payment. I have no deficit spending, I live within my means. So for all those who complain about deficit spending, think about your personal situation before you go off on the government you wish to rail against.
Enough of my soapbox for now, the title of this blog is an idea for a solution that the Tea Baggers should embrace IF they are truly serious about their desire for change to less government.
For argument's sake...let us start from scratch with regards to Federal responsibilities. Much has been made of sharing the wealth of the rich states with the poor states. Fine, lets do this.
The role of the Federal government shall be limited to areas of national interest. Banking, Border Security, Military Operations, Monetary policy, International Trade and Tariffs, Interstate commerce and Constitutionally mandated individual civil protections. Everything else is left to the states.
Each state will pay to the Federal government a fee to cover the costs of operating the 'New Federal System'. The Federal government will no longer collect taxes from individuals or companies, the states will pay for the support of the Federal system, in cash.
Each state will be responsible for the welfare of their own citizens. Provide for their own basic services as required by state law. Each state will be responsible for everything under their positive control. No more Federal welfare, no more Social Security, No more Food Stamps, Disaster relief or highway funds, aviation funding, infrastructure funding will come from the state coffers. Virtually everything funded or subsidized by the Federal system today will now fall under state control. For example, if a hurricane strikes the Gulf coast, the states are on their own. If the states wish to lower their education standards, so be it. If the states have to build roads and bridges, they pay for it themselves. If there is a toxic site in their state, the fix it on their own dime. If there is some form of Social Security or Welfare or Food Stamp program, it's a state program and they pay for it, not the Feds. Not one dime will come from the Federal government again.
I guarantee there will be no deficit spending on the Federal level again since each state pays their own way to the Federal government to cover the constitutionally mandates.
Of course this all sounds silly because not one state would ever sign on to this sort of change. But this is exactly what the Tenther's want. This is what the Tea Baggers want.
Look, we can bitch and complain about the current system and for sure it's not perfect, but the solutions offered by the right will never be accepted by the mainstream.
Of course, there is the Canada solution, become a Confederation again. Yes, we were a Confederation for 13 years after the Revolution.
There are those folks out there who actually believe what they say without giving what they say any rational thought. One day, I was having a conversation with someone who every time he said the President's name, he followed it by the phrase, "the Muslim". Clearly there is no opportunity here to have a reasonable, let alone rational conversation with a person like this. There is a certain segment in our society that really believes the lies as some sort of truth. Every few days I receive emails from a gentleman who is loosely aligned with the 9th Cav Association I belong to. He has this penchant for attacking the health care plane as proposed by Congress. His latest tirade is about the loss of Social Security health benefits, which anyone who has half a brain knows is just not true. He relies on his own personal network of rightists to profess their truth, as they 'see' it. When I was in the Army, years ago you find this sort of person everywhere. Lifer's we called them. Now, I am not saying that they don't have some valid issues to expound upon, rather there is no way to have a rational conversation with them since they are 'believers' in their own right.
Tenther's and Birther's other Tea Baggers are much the same, you cannot possibly have a free exchange of ideas with them, either because they are truly ignorant or they don't like the idea of paying their fair share for the freedoms we all enjoy. No one likes the idea of deficit spending, unless you consider your car payment or house payment or credit card payment as a form of deficit spending, which they are. I personally have no credit cards, mortgage or car payment. I have no deficit spending, I live within my means. So for all those who complain about deficit spending, think about your personal situation before you go off on the government you wish to rail against.
Enough of my soapbox for now, the title of this blog is an idea for a solution that the Tea Baggers should embrace IF they are truly serious about their desire for change to less government.
For argument's sake...let us start from scratch with regards to Federal responsibilities. Much has been made of sharing the wealth of the rich states with the poor states. Fine, lets do this.
The role of the Federal government shall be limited to areas of national interest. Banking, Border Security, Military Operations, Monetary policy, International Trade and Tariffs, Interstate commerce and Constitutionally mandated individual civil protections. Everything else is left to the states.
Each state will pay to the Federal government a fee to cover the costs of operating the 'New Federal System'. The Federal government will no longer collect taxes from individuals or companies, the states will pay for the support of the Federal system, in cash.
Each state will be responsible for the welfare of their own citizens. Provide for their own basic services as required by state law. Each state will be responsible for everything under their positive control. No more Federal welfare, no more Social Security, No more Food Stamps, Disaster relief or highway funds, aviation funding, infrastructure funding will come from the state coffers. Virtually everything funded or subsidized by the Federal system today will now fall under state control. For example, if a hurricane strikes the Gulf coast, the states are on their own. If the states wish to lower their education standards, so be it. If the states have to build roads and bridges, they pay for it themselves. If there is a toxic site in their state, the fix it on their own dime. If there is some form of Social Security or Welfare or Food Stamp program, it's a state program and they pay for it, not the Feds. Not one dime will come from the Federal government again.
I guarantee there will be no deficit spending on the Federal level again since each state pays their own way to the Federal government to cover the constitutionally mandates.
Of course this all sounds silly because not one state would ever sign on to this sort of change. But this is exactly what the Tenther's want. This is what the Tea Baggers want.
Look, we can bitch and complain about the current system and for sure it's not perfect, but the solutions offered by the right will never be accepted by the mainstream.
Of course, there is the Canada solution, become a Confederation again. Yes, we were a Confederation for 13 years after the Revolution.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The hypocrisy of Jeb Bush
Yesterday it was reported that Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida found 'unforgivable' the acceptance of Federal stimulus funds by current Governor Charlie Crist. The amount of the awards to the state of Florida have totaled, $9 Billion dollars.
The hypocrisy factor is quite apparent when you consider Florida received $5.6 Billion in Federal Disaster Aid in 2004 alone due to the plethora of hurricanes striking the Sunshine State. Hurricane Ivan brought $1.5 Billion in aid. The Governor at the time? Jeb Bush.
If I understand the basic philosophy about states rights and the concept of not sharing the wealth of other states, the whole idea of Federal Aid for any reason is an anathema to the Republic Party, yet the all beg for aid when their own resources and unwillingness to plan for their own disasters falls short.
The failures of states to live within their means and to properly prepare for potential disasters along with the knowledge that the Feds will bail them out makes this an unending cycle.
The stimulus package was designed to avert a crisis looming that was going to bring us all down, not a natural disaster but a man made one. Everyone is guilty of indifference and greed. Be it the Wall Street moguls or the folks who took on loans they knew they could not afford, we are all guilty. The system is the problem.
Governor Crist is the Governor for ALL Floridians, not Republic or Democratic ones or Independents. The stimulus funding is for ALL Floridians, not just the few. Take a look at Recovery.gov to see where your money is being spent, right down to the zip code.
Next time you criticize the current Governor, just take a look at your own hands for begging for disaster relief from the Feds. I suppose it did not hurt matters that your brother was President at the time.
The hypocrisy factor is quite apparent when you consider Florida received $5.6 Billion in Federal Disaster Aid in 2004 alone due to the plethora of hurricanes striking the Sunshine State. Hurricane Ivan brought $1.5 Billion in aid. The Governor at the time? Jeb Bush.
If I understand the basic philosophy about states rights and the concept of not sharing the wealth of other states, the whole idea of Federal Aid for any reason is an anathema to the Republic Party, yet the all beg for aid when their own resources and unwillingness to plan for their own disasters falls short.
The failures of states to live within their means and to properly prepare for potential disasters along with the knowledge that the Feds will bail them out makes this an unending cycle.
The stimulus package was designed to avert a crisis looming that was going to bring us all down, not a natural disaster but a man made one. Everyone is guilty of indifference and greed. Be it the Wall Street moguls or the folks who took on loans they knew they could not afford, we are all guilty. The system is the problem.
Governor Crist is the Governor for ALL Floridians, not Republic or Democratic ones or Independents. The stimulus funding is for ALL Floridians, not just the few. Take a look at Recovery.gov to see where your money is being spent, right down to the zip code.
Next time you criticize the current Governor, just take a look at your own hands for begging for disaster relief from the Feds. I suppose it did not hurt matters that your brother was President at the time.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Birther's President's Day Question
Q. Who was the first native born American President?
A. Martin Van Buren December 5, 1782
All previous Presidents were born as British Subjects. George Washington served as a Major in the Virginia Militia under command of British General Edward Braddock, British Commander in Chief. Washington was promoted to Colonel after Braddock's death in 1755.
Washington was elected in 1789, after the US Constitution was ratified. Now by birther standards, even George Washington could not serve as President. In fact, no one could be elected President who was born prior to 1776 if the birthers had their way.
Clearly some exception had to have been made, which might suggest there is a workaround to the constitutional requirement. The intent of this requirement was to ensure that a former British Subject did not sell out the United States as Benedict Arnold did. I don't think that we are to be concerned about that happening since those folks are dead and gone. Ironically, the Supreme Court has now ruled that companies, including foreign owned ones can use unlimited funds to influence American elections.
A. Martin Van Buren December 5, 1782
All previous Presidents were born as British Subjects. George Washington served as a Major in the Virginia Militia under command of British General Edward Braddock, British Commander in Chief. Washington was promoted to Colonel after Braddock's death in 1755.
Washington was elected in 1789, after the US Constitution was ratified. Now by birther standards, even George Washington could not serve as President. In fact, no one could be elected President who was born prior to 1776 if the birthers had their way.
Clearly some exception had to have been made, which might suggest there is a workaround to the constitutional requirement. The intent of this requirement was to ensure that a former British Subject did not sell out the United States as Benedict Arnold did. I don't think that we are to be concerned about that happening since those folks are dead and gone. Ironically, the Supreme Court has now ruled that companies, including foreign owned ones can use unlimited funds to influence American elections.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wanna know what really pisses me off?
The other day I was standing in line at a convenience store here in Rockport, Texas. In front of me was a kid, maybe 21 or so. He brought up to the counter a fountain soda and candy. Believe it or not he presented is Food Stamp card to the cashier to pay for them. After that transaction he pulled asked for some small cigars, which he paid for in cash.
What is going on here? Whatever happened to using food stamps for regular food items, like chicken and rice and veggies? Soda pop and candy are considered staples now? The way I see it, if you can afford smokes, you can afford to pay for your own junk food. No wonder we have obese children and record deficits.
This of course is not the first time I have seen this happen. I just don't understand how crap food at a convenience store qualifies for food stamps. Is this a state mandate or federal?
Ron Paul, you being my Congressman should do something about this nonsense, being a doctor, you of all people know what I am speaking of.
What is going on here? Whatever happened to using food stamps for regular food items, like chicken and rice and veggies? Soda pop and candy are considered staples now? The way I see it, if you can afford smokes, you can afford to pay for your own junk food. No wonder we have obese children and record deficits.
This of course is not the first time I have seen this happen. I just don't understand how crap food at a convenience store qualifies for food stamps. Is this a state mandate or federal?
Ron Paul, you being my Congressman should do something about this nonsense, being a doctor, you of all people know what I am speaking of.
Now Muslims are whining about full body scanners
Okay, enough is enough. I respect a persons right to object to a full body scanner on religious or other grounds. No big deal. The solution is simple. Either follow the rules or don't fly. It's that simple. Enough of the whining already. No one is making you fly commercial if you don't want to. Rent a jet or use the internets.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
I have been pondering this thought for sometime. In the US Senate they have this rule which slows down the legislative process or completely destroys legislation, good or bad. Here is the definition of a filibuster.
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Take note, it is not a law nor is it a 'formal' term. Also take note of " or by any other delaying or obstructive actions." Basically what a filibuster does is give a Senator or party a stranglehold over the legislative process. Now in the Senate it requires a super-majority of Senators to kill a filibuster, 60 votes. You see, actual legislation requires a simple majority of 50+1. To bring it to a vote, you need 60. Now, this of course seems to make no sense, unless you are the Republic Party. There is no law that allows for a filibuster, just a 'rule' of the Senate. So if this is the case, then how does this happen? Well, because there is no law against it, they can do whatever they like, unless it's unconstitutional. This brings me to Article 1 of the US Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Lets look at the phrase, promote the general Welfare. Constitutional, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to address issues such as Health Reform since it would fall under the 'promote the general Welfare' clause. Having a filibuster would indeed violate the spirit of the constitution, would it not? The intent of the founders was to have a simple majority rule for legislation. The House is already an odd number, 437. The Senate at 100 and the Vice President votes if there is a tie. The filibuster rule violates the intent on having a simple majority vote up and down. It actually prevents the Senate from following their constitutional obligations a simple up and down majority vote. Ergo, the filibuster is unconstitutional.
You see, the intent of the constitution is to provide us with safeguards and to allow for laws to be enacted that promote the public welfare. Sure the Dem's are in the majority, but that is because the people elected them to be there. There are times when the Republic Party is in power and they too must answer the same call. This is what a representative democracy is all about. The ebb and flow of public needs and who is best qualified to serve them. As it stands now, there is no chance of getting legislation to the floor for a vote if one person or party refuses to allow it to happen. This is not the democracy we signed on for.
If there are any lawyers out there and want to make a name for themselves, I would suggest taking the government to court over this issue and let the Supreme Court decide once and for all.
Try this: http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Take note, it is not a law nor is it a 'formal' term. Also take note of " or by any other delaying or obstructive actions." Basically what a filibuster does is give a Senator or party a stranglehold over the legislative process. Now in the Senate it requires a super-majority of Senators to kill a filibuster, 60 votes. You see, actual legislation requires a simple majority of 50+1. To bring it to a vote, you need 60. Now, this of course seems to make no sense, unless you are the Republic Party. There is no law that allows for a filibuster, just a 'rule' of the Senate. So if this is the case, then how does this happen? Well, because there is no law against it, they can do whatever they like, unless it's unconstitutional. This brings me to Article 1 of the US Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Lets look at the phrase, promote the general Welfare. Constitutional, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to address issues such as Health Reform since it would fall under the 'promote the general Welfare' clause. Having a filibuster would indeed violate the spirit of the constitution, would it not? The intent of the founders was to have a simple majority rule for legislation. The House is already an odd number, 437. The Senate at 100 and the Vice President votes if there is a tie. The filibuster rule violates the intent on having a simple majority vote up and down. It actually prevents the Senate from following their constitutional obligations a simple up and down majority vote. Ergo, the filibuster is unconstitutional.
You see, the intent of the constitution is to provide us with safeguards and to allow for laws to be enacted that promote the public welfare. Sure the Dem's are in the majority, but that is because the people elected them to be there. There are times when the Republic Party is in power and they too must answer the same call. This is what a representative democracy is all about. The ebb and flow of public needs and who is best qualified to serve them. As it stands now, there is no chance of getting legislation to the floor for a vote if one person or party refuses to allow it to happen. This is not the democracy we signed on for.
If there are any lawyers out there and want to make a name for themselves, I would suggest taking the government to court over this issue and let the Supreme Court decide once and for all.
Try this: http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html
Sunday, February 7, 2010
New Orleans elects first white mayor in 32 years
This statement really irritates the hell out of me.
NEW ORLEANS (AFP) – New Orleans has elected its first white mayor in 32 years, ushering in hopes of a new era in a city still trying to rebuild five years after Hurricane Katrina.
I was raising the point in an earlier blog that we are inherently racist and this adds fuel to the fire. When are we ever going to stop making outrageous statements about a persons race and some how suggesting that because a person of a certain colour, in this case, 'white' (caucasian), is going to do a better job of Mayor for New Orleans? Colour has nothing to do with anything, so why bring it up? It's funny, Jamaica which broke away from the British Empire usually voted for a 'white' person as Prime Minister and no one seem to be bothered by the fact Jamaican's are historically negro by numbers. What is so wrong with stating that with a new Mayor with super political connections may be just what New Orleans needs? He was Lt. Governor and is from a politically entrenched Louisiana family, his father once being mayor of New Orleans.I am sick and tired of using a person's race as some sort of important factor. It's not. A persons race is completely irrelevant. How can we be a colour blind society or at least make an effort to be if we keep bringing race into a conversation or headline.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Want to read a load of crap?
Regarding the Toyota recall and 'faulty' gas pedal mechanism, from AP.
"That was not enough for Dennis Dukes of Stony Point, N.C., and his wife, who said they wouldn't drive their 2010 Camry again, even with the repair. His wife ran into the back of a truck in August in their first Camry, a crash Dukes said happened after she hit the brakes and the car kept going."
This statement so bogus that I have to respond. As we learned from the infamous Audi 100 incident, this statement cannot possibly be true. The Audi 100 problems were first blasted over the airwaves by CBS' 60 Minutes. Unintended acceleration was the exclamation. Audi's sales dropped 95% in the USA and has never really quite recovered. As it turned out CBS was completely wrong with their assertions, claims and conclusions. The damage was done. As it turned out, every accident with the Audi were women drivers who had traded UP from a GM vehicle. There should have been red flags all over the place from the video 'evidence' alone. I saw the 60 Minutes report and one thing was missing and was so obvious to me and no one it seems paid any attention to it. In every case the drivers claimed 2 things, one that they had their foot on the brake, not the gas pedal and they also claimed they looked to be sure, more on this later. Now, the one thing missing from ALL the video and photographic evidence was the lack of skid marks. The Audi 100 was a front wheel drive car and the rear brakes would have locked and skid marks evident. There were none. The second issue of actually looking to verify the foot being on the brakes is an out and out lie. A few years later I bought an Audi 100, they were quite cheap for some reason. One thing that stood out to me, remembering the claim; I chose to see if I could tell if my foot was on the brake or gas. Seemingly a simple exercise, right. Not with the Audi 100. You see, the Audi 100 came equipped with a parcel shelf/knee bolster under the dash. You would have to be at eye level with the seat bottom to see where your foot was. Oh, did I mention that brake systems on cars will ALWAYS override the engine? Kinda the way they are designed.
Well, if all I said was true, then what happened? The accidents were real enough.
The answer is simple. Remember what I said about women and GM cars? Well, that was what was the problem. You see, the pedal placement on GM cars is wider than the Audi. It's like anything, you do something long enough, it becomes second nature. When something changes, well you keep doing as you always have until something happens to make you change. This was not a design defect. It was the lack of standards between manufacturers. The solution was to install an interlock system so that you cannot engage a gear now without putting your foot on the brakes first.
Ok, you don't believe this as being plausible or truthful? Let me give you some light with an experience of mine. On day my wife came home from work and told me how she darted into an intersection with her foot on the brakes. The VERY first thing she said to me was, "don't you dare try to blame me". Knowing she had just traded up to a Dodge Raider (Montero) from a GM car and me knowing that the pedal placement on the Raider was indeed narrower than the Calais was not enough evidence for me to say anything to her but this. If it happens the next time, just look at your foot. The Raider is wide open and easy to see. Sure enough a couple of weeks later it happened again. She came to me and apologized, she was now convinced it was driver error. She said she looked down and while her foot was on the brake pedal, the right side of her foot was dead on the gas pedal.
Anyway, I suspect we have a driver there who is looking for a lawsuit and deep pockets to sue.
But of course that is silly, we are Americans, we would not sue just to make a buck.
"That was not enough for Dennis Dukes of Stony Point, N.C., and his wife, who said they wouldn't drive their 2010 Camry again, even with the repair. His wife ran into the back of a truck in August in their first Camry, a crash Dukes said happened after she hit the brakes and the car kept going."
This statement so bogus that I have to respond. As we learned from the infamous Audi 100 incident, this statement cannot possibly be true. The Audi 100 problems were first blasted over the airwaves by CBS' 60 Minutes. Unintended acceleration was the exclamation. Audi's sales dropped 95% in the USA and has never really quite recovered. As it turned out CBS was completely wrong with their assertions, claims and conclusions. The damage was done. As it turned out, every accident with the Audi were women drivers who had traded UP from a GM vehicle. There should have been red flags all over the place from the video 'evidence' alone. I saw the 60 Minutes report and one thing was missing and was so obvious to me and no one it seems paid any attention to it. In every case the drivers claimed 2 things, one that they had their foot on the brake, not the gas pedal and they also claimed they looked to be sure, more on this later. Now, the one thing missing from ALL the video and photographic evidence was the lack of skid marks. The Audi 100 was a front wheel drive car and the rear brakes would have locked and skid marks evident. There were none. The second issue of actually looking to verify the foot being on the brakes is an out and out lie. A few years later I bought an Audi 100, they were quite cheap for some reason. One thing that stood out to me, remembering the claim; I chose to see if I could tell if my foot was on the brake or gas. Seemingly a simple exercise, right. Not with the Audi 100. You see, the Audi 100 came equipped with a parcel shelf/knee bolster under the dash. You would have to be at eye level with the seat bottom to see where your foot was. Oh, did I mention that brake systems on cars will ALWAYS override the engine? Kinda the way they are designed.
Well, if all I said was true, then what happened? The accidents were real enough.
The answer is simple. Remember what I said about women and GM cars? Well, that was what was the problem. You see, the pedal placement on GM cars is wider than the Audi. It's like anything, you do something long enough, it becomes second nature. When something changes, well you keep doing as you always have until something happens to make you change. This was not a design defect. It was the lack of standards between manufacturers. The solution was to install an interlock system so that you cannot engage a gear now without putting your foot on the brakes first.
Ok, you don't believe this as being plausible or truthful? Let me give you some light with an experience of mine. On day my wife came home from work and told me how she darted into an intersection with her foot on the brakes. The VERY first thing she said to me was, "don't you dare try to blame me". Knowing she had just traded up to a Dodge Raider (Montero) from a GM car and me knowing that the pedal placement on the Raider was indeed narrower than the Calais was not enough evidence for me to say anything to her but this. If it happens the next time, just look at your foot. The Raider is wide open and easy to see. Sure enough a couple of weeks later it happened again. She came to me and apologized, she was now convinced it was driver error. She said she looked down and while her foot was on the brake pedal, the right side of her foot was dead on the gas pedal.
Anyway, I suspect we have a driver there who is looking for a lawsuit and deep pockets to sue.
But of course that is silly, we are Americans, we would not sue just to make a buck.
I am trying to figure why some folks don't like Mr. Obama's policies.
Let's see....when Mr. Obama took over the reigns of government we were in the midst of a recession an economy heading to a depression. Prior to him taking office the Bush administration bailed out the banks and Wall Street. Mr. Obama faced 2 wars and looming higher unemployment, losing around 650,000 jobs a month. We were heading down the drain.
What has happened since. Unemployment has stabilised. GDP is showing growth signaling the end to the recession. The banks have paid back most of the TARP money, banks are making money again. The stock market is back to pre-recession levels. The war in Iraq is winding down, we will finish combat operations in August of this year. Afghanistan is going through a surge with the planned removal of troops starting next year. Inflation is less than 2%, factory orders are up. Ford Motor Company made a $3 billion profit last year. The stimulus package has saved 2 million jobs and we are rebuilding our infrastructure over the next 2 years. A nuclear arms treaty with Russia is almost complete. Consumer confidence has come back, people are saving more money. 95% of all taxpayers received a tax cut, small business has received tax cuts and credits. There was the cash for clunkers program helping people buy more fuel efficient cars. There is the tax credit for home buyers. Social Security recipients received a $250 bonus, no COLA, but part B did not increase. So they pretty much offset each other.
Ok, so someone explain to me what the complaint is. Before you do, ask yourself this, where would we be if NOTHING had been done.
What has happened since. Unemployment has stabilised. GDP is showing growth signaling the end to the recession. The banks have paid back most of the TARP money, banks are making money again. The stock market is back to pre-recession levels. The war in Iraq is winding down, we will finish combat operations in August of this year. Afghanistan is going through a surge with the planned removal of troops starting next year. Inflation is less than 2%, factory orders are up. Ford Motor Company made a $3 billion profit last year. The stimulus package has saved 2 million jobs and we are rebuilding our infrastructure over the next 2 years. A nuclear arms treaty with Russia is almost complete. Consumer confidence has come back, people are saving more money. 95% of all taxpayers received a tax cut, small business has received tax cuts and credits. There was the cash for clunkers program helping people buy more fuel efficient cars. There is the tax credit for home buyers. Social Security recipients received a $250 bonus, no COLA, but part B did not increase. So they pretty much offset each other.
Ok, so someone explain to me what the complaint is. Before you do, ask yourself this, where would we be if NOTHING had been done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)