June 12, 2006
The NC Senate passed Senate Bill 1289 to ban people under 18 from using a cell phone while driving. Some of you are cheering this move, I'm sure. But the devil, as usual, is in the details.
What punishement do these egregious violators face? No driver's license points, no insurance increases, not even court fees -- just a $25 fine. Sure, in most cases, who will pay that fine? The parents. Oh, but wait -- it gets better!
If the child is calling 911, that's okay. But it's also okay if the child was calling their parents. And let's see how that's going to work out:
Policeman pulls over the kid for talking on the phone. Kid hangs up to talk to policeman. "Son, who were you talking to?"
Kid: "My mom"
Policeman: "Oh, okay, sorry to bother you."
And the stupid, utterly useless, practically impossible to enforce bill still passed the Senate 38-8. Good job Senator(s): Albertson; Berger, P.; Brunstetter; East; Kerr; Nesbitt; Presnell; Stevens for voting against that crap.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:06 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
June 10, 2006

Once again, I've departed to camp and fish all weekend, away from the "real world." I'll be back Sunday or Monday. Have fun without me!
Posted by: Ogre at
02:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
Raise your hand if you're shocked.
They're complaining that the "partnership" received reimbursements without documentation and that some expenses were paid for twice. They also question expenses for trips to Ireland and to New Orleans during Mardi Gras.
Hey morons, what did you THINK they were going to do with the money? When you GIVE people money they didn't earn for them to spend, they're going to spend it. That's how government works. If you don't want government to waste money, the ONLY way to stop them is to NOT give them the money!
Can someone perform an audit on the North Carolina General Assembly (D) next?
Posted by: Ogre at
12:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2006
MELANIE (age 5) asked her Granny how old she was. Granny replied she was so old she didn't remember any more. Melanie said, "If you don't remember you must look in the back of your panties. Mine say five to six."
Posted by: Ogre at
07:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
Press Contact: Frank Williams
(919) 833-4345
RALEIGH – Kieran Shanahan, Chairman of the N. C. Property Rights Coalition, commented on the eminent domain reform legislation passed Tuesday by the North Carolina House. The legislation is aimed at preventing local governments from using eminent domain authority to take land for private economic development projects.
“The bill passed by the State House is a mere band-aid,” said Shanahan. “Legislatures come and go, and laws can easily be changed. That’s why we need a state Constitutional amendment to ensure that North Carolinians’ private property is safe from eminent domain abuse. A Constitutional amendment will give us protection that stands the test of time.”
“On behalf of the many North Carolinians who have voiced their support for our efforts in recent days, I thank the N.C. House of Representatives for taking this first step. Now, I challenge our legislators to take the next step and provide our citizens with the Constitutional protection they deserve.”
The North Carolina Property Rights Coalition (NCPRC) is a 501(c) (4) non-profit coalition of individuals, organizations, businesses and community leaders dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights and interests of property owners, as well as revealing misuses and threats of eminent domain throughout North Carolina. More information on the N.C. Property Rights Coalition is available at www.NCPropertyRights.com.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
"We know that everybody sues everybody in the United States, but Holland is not like that, it's not how it works here," Frey said.
Nice.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:01 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.
And Claim To Be Tax Cutters
By Jack Hawke
Any legislator voting for the proposed 2006 massive spending increases is voting for a tax increase in the next session of the General Assembly. They are making commitments for future spending without the revenue to meet those commitments. In short, they are growing state government with one-time income (nonrecurring revenue).
I can understand the big spending Democrats expanding spending beyond future income. They believe in bigger government and in recent years have voted to increase taxes to fulfill their belief. But I cannot understand Republicans who pledge to vote against tax increases joining the big spenders. The Republicans must control spending if they really believe that people can spend their own money better than government.
At least the tax and spend legislators are consistent in their voting habits. But those who overspend and then vote against new taxes to pay for their spending are ethically challenged.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
How's that for an utterly useless waste of taxpayer money? We're actually working to pay taxes so that the government can spend the money to "keep children from getting bored."
I'm bored with this, how much money do I get? I'm pretty bored, this could be expensive...oh, and if you don't pay me piles of cash, I might commit a crime, so you better pay me quickly.
Irresponsible asses -- the Democrat government, that is.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
June 08, 2006
Now living in the socialist republic of Massachusetts, Peter isn't quite as conservative as yours truly -- but anything that can pull the leftists back towards sanity is a good thing!
Head on over and have a read!
Posted by: Ogre at
05:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
A central theme of the 2004 elections coinciding with the Presidential election was state amendments to their individual Constitutions defining marriage or banning same sex marriages. The ACLU has been successful in overturning these laws passed by the popular vote of the people in 2 states. Now, the ACLU is challenging another such law this time in the Volunteer State and the case is now coming before the state Supreme Court.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.
He's already got one co-sponsor of the bill, Rep Randy Forbes, from Virginia. Unfortunately, the bill text isn't online yet, but the bill should be good, including such Mexican ideas as punishing illegal aliens with 2 years jails time and hefty fines...
Ms. Underestimated has more.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:07 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.
Government is not a charity...It is coercive, not charitable.
That's a point I try to make over and over again. It is quite literally impossible for government to extend charity in any way, shape, or form. Every single dollar that government has, they have taken by force of arms. Don't believe me? Try and get past today without sending the proper forms in to the state.
In a true charitable situation, there is a giver and a receiver. When the giver voluntarily gives, they are aware of the donation and can see the immediate results. The giver can decide for themselves if their money, which they actually worked to receive, should be given to whom, and for what purposes.
The receiver in a truly charitable situation, receives the money that they know was earned. They may see the giver and know that the giver honestly believes in the receiver. There is often a quite real relationship that is formed between the giver and the receiver -- both benefit.
In many cases, the giver may never see the receiver -- an anonymous donation is often one of the best, as both parties still benefit without additional complications.
However, when this is extended to government, all benefits of the charitable situation disappear. The giver has no choice. The giver is required to "donate" their money, or they will be placed in jail. That's the power government has. The giver has no say over who or what will receive the "donation." If large amounts of waste are present in the system, again, the giver has no way to control that situation.
In addition, the giver receives no relationship with the receiver. The giver does not know who will receive the money, nor how much they will actually receive. The giver cannot determine not only if their hard-earned money will be used for causes they believe in; but also the amount that will be used.
The receiver in a government "charity" situation also does not benefit. They do not know who the giver is. They often are faced with bureaucratic hurdles that make getting the "donation" harder. And they are told by those who distribute the wealth that these people "deserve" the money.
The receiver does not receive the knowledge that someone actually believes in them or their ideas, because they see that others are also receiving the exact same amount, or the exact same benefits, no matter their own, or others', personal actions.
When government takes from one person, by force, and gives to another, both parties are worse off. Government is literally incapable of charity -- no matter if it's for "the children(TM), arts, "the poor," or any other reason -- so stop trying to claim they are.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.
The first article talks about a woman who was shot while stealing gasoline. The article mentions that the man who was defending his property was arrested -- and the woman who was stealing appears to have gone free.
The second article is about a strange lawsuit. Read the whole article if you like, it's rather long and details. The gist of the lawsuit is that a man is suing a church to stop the church from telling people that he's committed adultery, and with whom. He doesn't want them to.
Can you find the common thread here? What jumped out at me was responsibility. If you don't want to get shot, don't steal. That seems pretty clear and obvious to me, but it's just as obvious that the current system of courts and government does NOT. In this case, as with many others like it, the person who committed the crime is the victim. Once upon a time, a man's home was his castle. Not any more.
Feel free to argue that gasoline isn't worth a life -- I agree. Therefore, the criminal shouldn't have tried to steal it, knowing their life was at risk. If it's my property, it IS my right to defend that with any means necessary -- even if the current government system disagrees.
The second one is similar -- if you don't want people to find out about your adulterous activities, DON'T COMMIT ADULTERY. Why is this so hard to comprehend? But once again, the current courts and legal system are completely backwards -- somehow committing a crime makes you a victim and you have new, special rights because you committed a crime.
In the west, when laws get twisted beyond all comprehension and logic, people take things into their own hands. For example, when the wolf is "protected" so that you cannot kill one under any circumstances, but the wolf attacks your property, your sheep, your livelihood, or even your family, what are you to do? If you kill the wolf, you will go to jail. If you don't, you will lose your productivity or your life. Makes no sense, does it? What many people in the west do is what they have to -- kill the wolf, but then hide all evidence of it -- bury it.
How far are we from that point with the rest of the criminal law system? If a criminal attacks me, and I kill him, what are the odds of me being arrested? If I use a gun, they are very high. However, if I do not call the police and hide the body, am I better or worse off?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:07 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
The big lie that's currently making the rounds is that the gas tax is used by North Carolina to build roads while other states use other funds. The lie claims that other states supplement the road-building funds with other taxes and gas taxes only pay a portion of the costs to build roads. In reality, in North Carolina, a portion of the gas taxes collected are taken OUT of the road-building funds and are placed into the general fund for the Democrat legislators to spend as they please.
There's some in the state legislature that are attempting to lower the gas tax by a whopping 3 cents per gallon. Democrat Governor Easley is very opposed to ANY tax reduction of ANY type and he has voiced his strong opposition to reducing the gas tax specifically.
So when you hear and read the reports about the gas tax in North Carolina, don't forget -- the state is controlled by Democrats and they do NOT want to cut one of the highest gas taxes in the nation for any reason -- and they're lying when they say they're using all the gas tax to fund road-building.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
June 07, 2006
(H/T to Mustang).
Posted by: Ogre at
05:04 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R)
U.S. Senator Liddy Dole (R)
U.S. President George Bush (R)
Nearly All Large U.S. Corporations.
That is all.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:07 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
It's Still Alive! by Ms.Underestimated
Folks, I told you about the good news Congressman John Linder gave us about an impending face-to-face with President Bush about the Fair Tax, and now the word is out! The Gwinnett Daily Post catches us up on this great news:
FairTax still kicking
06/04/2006
By: Dave Williams
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
03:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 6 kb.
Current the race is to replace retiring Senator Mike Dayton (D) and is considered to be a race where the Republicans stand a chance in picking up a seat in the Senate.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
02:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
California instead has decided that a policeman can enter someone's house without a warrant and search at will -- a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution. But hey, that document was written a long time ago by people who could have never foreseen drinking and driving, right? Oh, how I yearn for freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:05 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
94 queries taking 0.1433 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.