April 06, 2006
Kender made one, too -- and another and others have created more!
Posted by: Ogre at
06:07 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Via BP News
A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.more...The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the surprise of some.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1014 words, total size 8 kb.
Again, the claims:
an increase to $6 an hour would directly affect 100,000 workers in North Carolina. They say that an additional 200,000 workers who already make at least $6 an hour could see a raise, too, as an indirect result.
You know, they're right here. It will "affect" 100,000 workers -- 50,000 will see wage increases, 50,000 will lose jobs, and all 100,000 will be forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. And the 200,000 who will see an indirect result? Sure -- again, many losing their jobs.
Minimum wage laws are archaic remains of a bygone past. Another moron says,
Nobody ever says that [negative effects] about the CEO's salary, and all the advantages of CEOs, when their salaries go up,
It's called economics of a free society, "Reverend" William Barber. The CEO EARNS that money, instead of getting a raise just because the law demands it. If you weren't such a jealous person, you'd see that and work to earn your own money instead of turning so green with envy over what the Jones' have.
Minimum wage laws MAY have had a purpose years ago. In today's society they are simply not needed -- all laws regarding minimum wage should be abolished. After all, American's won't do those jobs, anyway, right?
Posted by: Ogre at
03:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
Here's the agenda items:
- Eliminate so-called Temporary Taxes
- Limit Spending By Adopting the Taxpayer Protection Act
- Eliminate the Gas Tax Increase
- Help Communities Build Schools
- Eliminate State Benefits to Illegal Immigrants & Make English Official Language
- Adopt Defense of Marriage Act
- Pass Constitutional Amendment To Protect Property Rights
An ambitious list, to be sure. But there's a lot of good things that would happen if even some of those items can be put in place. Does your candidate (if you have one) for the general assembly support this agenda? It certainly would give you a reason to vote for one candidate over another, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at
02:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 2 kb.
Karen Ray is a very upstanding citizen who works very hard for everyone in her district. Keeping jobs here and creating new ones are of foremost concern to her. Robert Brawley has tried and will continue to try and distort the facts that he can not back up himself. Robert Brawley has a very shady past in his history in the House of Representatives. If Robert Brawley had done so much for our area as far as roads and infrastructure why are we still in this situation we are. He was there for 18 years and has nothing to show for it besides being disloyal to the Republican Party. People in the 95th district should keep posted to the local press and other media and really see what type of politician Robert Brawley is.
Thanks for adding your opinion!
I also noticed a local news article where the two candidates really let one another have it. They're both running from any association with Jim Black -- Karen Ray apparently actually campaigned for the disgraced Democrat Speaker of the House, apparently got a cash reward for doing so.
Karen Ray claims that Robert Brawley tried to support Black back in 1997 for cash, too. Guess that just shows how much cash Black was spreading around over the years, bribing anyone and everyone, doesn't it?
Hey, if you've got an opinion on the Brawley-Ray race, feel free to weigh in here!
Posted by: Ogre at
01:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.
Mr. Hendrix says
a Republican WILL win the 13th district race for the Congress
I bet that's news to the current incumbent, Brad Miller (D) -- but hey, anything that moves away from the socialist/democrat platform is an improvement to me.
John Ross Hendrix does have a website. On it, he apparently sets himself up as a "moderate," with this statement:
Feed the hungry. House the homeless. Educate the jobless. Secure our borders. Protect the earth. Explore the universe. Establish complete justice. Preserve our freedoms. Protect the Constitution from the extremists, to left and the Right. Bring that rare commodity, common sense, to government.
I can't say I agree with all that -- I absolutely do NOT think that government should have anything to do with feeding ANYONE or providing housing for ANYONE -- it's just not government's job. But hey, right now my biggest issue is borders. Please do check out both websites, and I'm going to attempt to contact both candidates and see if I can get their positions on the current border PROBLEMS...
And if either candidate is at the John William Pope Institute North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference this weekend, I'll be sure and get some more from them.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.
mentoring programs, law enforcement training, and after-school program
Now, if you're a Democrat, you know what that will do. Actually, if you're a conservative, you know too, it's just different from what the Democrats think. Governor Easley, of course, claims that by being nice and creating new after-school programs, that gang-violence will go away.
If you have a clue about reality, you know that this will have absolutely no effect on crime at all. It's been tried and tired again. "Talking" to criminals does not make them stop committing crime, it just doesn't. But that doesn't matter to Democrats.
Look for this to be used in Democrat advertising and campaigning in the fall as "crime fighting" money. It's a lie, as usual.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
April 05, 2006
Her "staff" has been having meetings, trying to determine how to counter the aftereffects of these actions. Our staff on crack crack staff managed to obtain a draft memo from her office regarding a meeting they were planning to have to discuss how she can show her support for the capitol police in the meantime:
- Bake marijuana brownies and distribute them to the capitol police.
- Pass out free coupons to all the capitol police for new hairstyles.
- Buy all capitol police new bulletproof vests that also include a soft, padded spot in the front.
- Suggest firing all while capital police officers and only hire blacks to somehow eliminate all racism in the capital building.
- Fire the entire capitol hill police department, since they're all racist, anyway.
- Demand that Congress meet at her house so she doesn't have to deal with the racists at capitol hill.
- Punch all the other members of the capitol hill police, so no one will feel singled out.
There's no word yet, which of these options will make it out of the committee meeting...
(An Alliance Precision Guided Humor Assignment).
Posted by: Ogre at
10:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
In lieu of the recent events transpiring over the course of the last two weeks, Terry and I thought it would be prudent to discuss the implications of the Fair Tax and how it would possibly cooperate with the immigration discussion. Rest assured, we strive to remain non-partisan, as we both firmly believe that the Fair Tax is an issue that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians can all come together on. This is why I will attempt to refrain from inserting some of my beliefs into this week's burst as it pertains to the immigration policies Congress is grappling with.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
05:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 5 kb.
Fox News is reporting President Bush says he wants a "comprehensive" bill:
that will cause the people in the interior of this country to recognize and enforce the laws and a bill that will enable us to have a guest worker program that will recognize that there are people here working hard in jobs that Americans don't want.
So he wants a law that will enforce the law but ignore the law at the same time. He wants to completely ignore the current criminals who have invaded this country by rewarding them with a guest worker program: amnesty.
And dammit, stop already with the complete and total LIE that Americans don't want those jobs! It's a damn LIE.
In North Carolina, for example, landscaping and yard care is a seasonal job -- it's only really needed in the summertime. College students and high school students aren't in school during the summertime. Those jobs used to be filled by the students. THEY WERE DOING THOSE JOBS. It is very simply a lie to claim that Americans "don't want", or "won't do" those jobs.
States, since the federal government will not do it's job, I hope there's someone out there who will. I hope there's one brave state that will stand up to this invasion and try and stop it. States HAVE that right, whether the federal government wants to admit it or not.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:04 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
Pass Constitutional Amendment To Protect Property Rights
Once again, feel free to weigh in either for or against this idea for North Carolina (even if you're not from North Carolina).
The Supreme Court held that government could take private property by eminent domain for a public use as well as a public purpose. With this ruling, North Carolina needs state constitutional protection from government seizure of private property for perceived public benefits. Other states have experienced the taking of an individualÂ’s property by government to give to another individual who will change the use and increase the tax revenue. The basic right of an individual to own property is at stake.Some legislators argue there is no need to amend the N.C. Constitution because they say our state is relatively restrictive. State law can be changed at any time, and often without public notice. The only true protection is a constitutional amendment.
I don't really understand the opposition to this amendment. Well, actually, I do. The people who oppose this amendment claim, as shown above, that the laws are already in place. Those, however, are the exact same people who are in a position to CHANGE those laws any time they would like.
Those who oppose this amendment are saying that they want to reserve the right to take land at any time, by any means, if they deem it necessary. Say hello to the Democrats of North Carolina, because that is their position -- they want that option open to them, just in case they think they can get away with it "need" it.
After Kelo v. New London, this amendment is clearly needed. If the law is "already there" to protect people's property, why not just make the law a bit better and put it in the state Constitution? Yes, I am aware that the Democrats will ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit them, but this will just make it a little bit more difficult and protect property rights just a little bit more.
I've mentioned before that without property rights, you have absolutely NO rights at all. This amendment is sorely needed, and I support it's passage absolutely -- and therefore it will not get anywhere. Again, I've talked to my "sources" in the Legislature, and I'm told that the Democrats are NOT interested in protecting property rights and that they will not even consider this bill.
Previously:
Introduction
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Posted by: Ogre at
03:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.
However, it seems there are some in Massachusetts who actually like destroying freedom. Brian, a self-described "working man of Massachusetts," tries to support crushing freedom using the same tactics that the left has used for years, and the same tactic that gets totalitarian governments in power: emotion. Brian says
I, the working man of Massachusetts, have no problem helping people who need it.
Brian, that's nice. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with this law. You can help people all you want. No one is stopping you from helping anyone, anytime you like. Before this bill passed, you could help people. After the bill passed, you could still help people. This law does not affect you helping people in any way, shape or form.
Except -- the bill actually stops ME from helping people! It takes away money from me that I could have used to help people. This bill takes money from people who earned it -- that is NOT helping people. Making people into slaves to government does not help people. Brian, you go ahead and help people -- but by what right do you claim MY money to help them?
So, Brian, you want to help people but you don't want to use YOUR money, you want to use MY money. In a free country (which we are clearly no more) that's called robbery. Since the government is doing it and I will go to jail if I fail to comply, that's armed robbery. And unfortunately, I cannot call the police to protect my property, because it's the police that are taking it.
Peter Porcupine, another resident of the totalitarian republic of Massachusetts weighs in with some more of the reasoning behind the law:
The rationale behind the plan - and I'm not wild about it - is that every other solution offered has involved a surcharge on employers, general tax, etc. And we DO pay now, through the Uncompensated Care Pool which funds hospital emergency rooms.Instead of just whacking businesses again, for the first time, this places the responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL to provide for their own health insurance. When I was an agent (full disclosure) all the twenty-somethings who thought they were invincible refused the coverage - until they fell off a roof or something and wound up in...the Uncompensated Care Pool, which was a taxpayer black hole.
I realize it violates libertarian principles to be forced to purchase coverage - but hospitals cannot turn you away and this is a damn sight better than the usual 'soak the business' solution.
Sorry, Peter, you're falling into that same liberal trap -- the trap that says government is good, no matter what it does, so if there's a problem, the solution MUST be more government -- and that is bad.
No, armed robbery of citizens is NOT a good solution at all.
By what right does the state claim my money at all? Why is it my obligation to take care of everyone else's medical care? You do not have a right to medical care, free or otherwise, in any free society, period. To claim that you have that right means that you have the right to the labor of another man -- and that's just completely wrong.
If you take care of yourself, eat right, exercise, avoid smoking and high risk activities your whole life; but I do everything poorly, including many high risk activities, how it is right for me to force you to pay for my medical care? The people who are good and right are being forced to pay for those who are not -- and that's utterly and completely wrong.
I yearn and desire freedom -- a freedom to actually be responsible for myself. I want a freedom where I can take care of myself health wise and not be financially punished for it. I want the freedom to take the money I work for and help those who *I* want to help, rather than those who are wasteful and unproductive.
And yes, Brian, I find it incredibly ironic that Massachusetts, one of the birthplaces of freedom, would be one of the first states to work so hard to completely and totally remove freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:09 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.
Now I can't tell if this article is supposed to be in the "news" section of the paper or not, but it's clearly an opinion piece with a few facts carelessly tossed about. The premise is that a woman was choked because her husband choked her while working for a private health facility and if the state had screened him properly, he wouldn't have been working there, and therefore wouldn't have choked his wife.
The article bemoans the fact that this man was accused of a crime and was not immediately fired from his job. Seriously. Yes, the day he was convicted of a crime, he was fired, but that's not good enough for the author of this piece -- he apparently should have been fired when he was simply accused of wrongdoing. I wonder if Ms. Welch applies that principle to her existence, too.
She goes on to complain that nurse's aides, certified by the state, do not have a criminal check done to get certified, but actually DO have a criminal check done before they're hired by the facility. I'm not exactly sure why this is a problem, but Ms. Welch thinks the government should maintain all certification processes and include criminal background checks at the government level, instead of allowing employers access to that information.
I'm not sure exactly why anyone thinks that government can do a better job than private industry. Government has as much a vested interest as private industry, only a worse one -- private industry is limited by money, while government only exists today to create more government.
Instead of increasing regulation, the state should DECREASE nurse's aide regulation -- allow a private group to certify nurse's aides any way they want to. That would even allow MORE THAN ONE registry! It would allow nationwide registries! It would create levels of competition never seen before in nursing. But that would also increase freedom, which big-government supporters like Ms. Welch apparently do not like.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:02 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.
April 04, 2006
Tell me again about how our economy is so suffering that we have so many kids eating so much food and being so sedentary that they're overweight? In another government report, supposedly 23% of children age 2-5 were "overweight." To combat the fatness and laziness of today's children, car seat manufacturers are creating new car seats "to accommodate" the fatties. I just wonder how these will be marketed:
Safeguard Doublewides: for the chunky child
How about
Bretax Child Seats: Now in size F, VF, and Super-F
or maybe
Safety Enormo-Seats: Now Fits children up to 220 lbs!
And the top of the line:
Eddie Bauer Leather XXXL Car Seat: 2 entire cows used to ensure enough leather to line the entire seat!
Feel free to add your own...
Posted by: Ogre at
06:03 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
The socialists in Massachusetts are really celebrating. They're also helping to ensure that I will never, ever, live or do business in that state (which is how states are supposed to work, by the way) -- but I also want to stop my money from flowing into the state via federal dollars.
The bill REQUIRES all citizens of Massachusetts to have health insurance, even if you do not want it. That's completely wrong. And yes, it really does DEMAND that you get health insurance -- if you do not, you will actually be FINED by the state! Yes, the state of Massachusetts is going to FINE you if you do not spend your money the way they tell you to.
State Senator Richard T. Moore, celebrating the state takeover of individuals, says, "I think every member of the Legislature will be able to be very proud of [the bill]." How utterly insane is that? In case you missed it:
The State of Massachusetts is Determining how you spend your money. If you do not spend YOUR money the way they demand, YOU WILL BE FINED.
And yes, of course, if the state determines that you do not make "enough" money, they will be glad to force someone ELSE to pay for your involuntary health insurance. Article I of the Massachusetts Constitution says:
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
That clearly doesn't apply here. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the ACLU to jump on in here to defend these people's rights -- but if the ACLU were actually interested in civil rights, this would be a perfect case. If people have the right to "acquire, possess, and protect property," then how does the state have the right to demand that property be spent in certain ways?
But hey, if you're a lazy bum, feel free to head on over to Massachusetts -- you get all the free healthcare you want. And if you're a working person, you really should get the heck out while the state will still let you.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:09 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
I believe government is a necessary evil that should do as absolutely little as possible, because nearly anything they do, they WILL screw it up. Why? Because they don't know how to think like an actual human being. Don't believe me? Do you know anyone else on the entire planet who is NOT in government that actually thinks that if there is a problem with too much congestion, REDUCING the number of lanes will help?
Well, Charlotte City government claims it will. In a way, Jeff Taylor's got it right when he thinks they're smoking something. Actually, it's more like these people are actively working forward with their war on the automobile, it's the people who actually believe them that are really out there.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
Adopt Defense of Marriage Act
Once again, feel free to weigh in either for or against this idea for North Carolina (even if you're not from North Carolina).
Marriage is a sacred institution under attack in many states. With other states legalizing same-sex marriage, the attack on traditional marriage has just begun. Conservatives should fight for a vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
This bill is introduced every year. This year, it was Senator Forrester in the Senate. He continues to introduce it and push it. However, since it was introduced by a Republican, it never moves anywhere -- despite 24 co-sponsors. That means at least 50% of the North Carolina Senate is a co-sponsor and would vote for the bill. If it were voted on, it would only need ONE vote to pass...and that's why the Democrats won't let it see the light of day.
The proposed bill is rather simple -- it's not even a page long. It just asks for a Constitutional Amendment that adds, "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage is the union of one man and one woman at one time, and this is the only marriage that shall be recognized as valid in this State." That's it.
Note there's nothing there about taking away ANY rights from ANY people at all. It's very simple and 78% of the people of North Carolina support it. And the Democrats shouldn't really mind -- they disobey the Constitution now when they don't like it, so this won't affect them at all.
The so-called "gay community" shouldn't care either -- this doesn't stop them from doing what they want to do in the privacy of their own home. This doesn't take away any of their rights. But they will still scream and yell because they don't want rights, they want special rights and they want complete and total approval of their actions -- which I will not give them.
I completely support this agenda item. I'm not sure if it can pass or not, just because all it takes is a couple Democrats who love gay people to get the bill stalled in a committee -- as they've done in the past. However, if Senator Forrester lets the bill get filed by a Democrat, it will likely pass quickly -- and the good Senator has told me that he's more concerned with getting things passed that are good and right than getting his name on them.
Previously:
Introduction
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
In return, he gets punished. He's made to sit in the back row. He won't be called on when he asks for a turn to speak. He gets the worst offices and the least funding for office staff. His phones might not work on some days. Either you get along with Jim Black, and do as he says, or you get punished by him.
But John Rhodes doesn't let that bother him. He'll still tell it like it is. His position on the lottery is to simply state the truth:
"It's another revenue stream and that's one of the biggest oppositions I've had to it. Government has taken enough of our hard-earned tax dollars and we don't need to be providing another revenue stream.
Anyone who claims it's for the children, education, or anything else is just simply lying. The Democrats in the legislature want more money, and they'll do whatever it takes to get that money -- just so they can spend it. Calling this lottery the "education" lottery is a complete and total lie, designed to get people to say (and I've already heard many saying it), "Well, at least if I lose the money goes for education."
That's simply a lie. But the Democrats don't care, because they're getting more money to spend.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:04 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.
95 queries taking 0.1332 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
