Well, your right - I'm not. And I'll admit - I tend not to see things through the filters a Democrat sees them through - whatever that means. I'd like to think that I see things through the filters that a fair person sees things through - and I don't like it when people say one thing and do another -- or hurt the very people they claim to be trying to help - hypocrites and schemers. Lately, its been the new Democrat leaders that are so outlandish I can't stand it -- tomorrow it may be someone else. My mind picks up on lots of stuff, and thinks about why.
I don't understand why automobile smog laws were put into place to clean up our air -which is polluted heavily by older, non-smog-technology-current cars. Then someone decides that smogging the older cars would hurt poor people, because they can't afford a new car and can't afford to repair an old one. So, now we have smog laws that do virtually nothing. And really - who got helped. Its the little guys who build cars on the assembly line - so by keeping old ones on the road, less people have jobs. And its the poor people who can't afford health insurance to pay for the damage to their bodies that smog does....so who really got helped ???
I don't understand why the Air Pollution, Water Pollution and Ground Pollution people never have lunch together. If a gas station pollutes the ground - they dig up the soil and stack it for a period of time until the gas in it evaporates into the air. The air pollution folks have us put MTBE into our gas, which pollutes the water. The water pollution folks have us pump water up a stack, and blow air through it to evaporate the pollutants into the air. I mean, come on -- none of that makes sense...
I don't understand why our "Representatives" sell their votes to lobbies for industries that cause us to use old technology, that does not work, so they can make money. If the air pollution folks want clean air - then why don't they just mandate clean air standards -- and let the engineers figure out how to meet them? Why say - This is the standard AND you have to use a catalytic converter in your design? Why not let the engineers do their job -- oh yeah, someone from the catalytic converter lobby bought lunch last week....so we, the people get stuck with the bill.
I try not to let my personal political party run me or my opinions. If my opinions happen to be in alignment with one party or the other, its because that party is aligned with me at the time, not the other way around.
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger -- "real" Republicans AND "real" Democrats don't.
I think Bush is guilty of the same error in judgement about going to Iraq that 30 other countries, the UN, and a lot of Democrats (including Hilary) were. Can we make lemonade out of lemons? Hard to say, but there seem to be a lot of people who would rather run away and hide, then step up to the plate and deal with what we created -- that's right WE created, the whole darn country, each and every one of us -- because our government is BY the people -- and that means us folks. I think it would be wrong to dismember Iraq's govenment like we did, and then leave it to the wolves. Can we do anything to keep that from happening? Was it going to happen regardless? I don't know yet -- but it would be wrong to just walk away without trying.
There already are a lot of folks trying to say Bush was being evil -- remember, those are the same folks who could make me going out to dinner with my wife look like I was cheating on her. They will take things out of context, leave out facts, cut and paste -- anything they have to in order to get us to believe that what we saw and heard 4 years ago isn't what we saw and heard....well I watched the lips move and heard the words, and I remember them. So, they can blow their smoke some other direction.
I think Jimmy Carter is a truly great man -- truly great -- but he wasn't cut out to be President, and he had lousy people backing him, so they could use him.
I think people tend to blame the way it is too often on someone else, other than themselves -- or just that the way it is, is the way it is:
Like someone who doesn't have a job saying its someone else's fault - when the want ads are full of opportunity -- maybe not doing what they want, but doing something that is an honest living.
Or like people who can't understand why our standard of living is falling -- well, there used to be two separate world economies - Free Market (us) and Communism (them) -- and then communism failed - so, all the people from those countries (roughly 1/2 the population on earth) entered into the same market we are in, Free Market. And they had nothing, and even more importantly - no bills -- no house payment, insurance payment, car payment, NO BILLS -- so they could work cheap. So, any job that doesn't have to be done on local soil is up for grabs -- and the person willing to work the cheapest gets it. So, we gotta find ways to compete, or loose those jobs -- and we can only work so fast at menial tasks (how many lug nuts can someone screw on in one hour for example) -- so if we want those jobs, we gotta take a cut in pay. That's just the way it is...complaining won't change it -- nothing will change it - so get over it...
I think some people truly need and deserve help --- and those people usually get it regardless of what our government does. A local community is very good at knowing its own people, and which ones are deserving of help, and which ones are lazy. I think that when our government gets involved -- people tend to find ways to make the rules work for them, rather than try to use the help to get back on their feet -- and so the government just becomes an enabler, rather than a helper.
It doesn't really matter to me WHO is doing us wrong. The intent is what I look for. I can be very forgiving of someone who has really good intentions, studies a situation and thinks they are doing the best for us -- but totally messes up. But, I have no patience for someone who is out to do us wrong, and goes way out of their way to do it. Or who tells us they are doing something to help us, when in fact they could care less about us, and are just using us to line their pockets.
And that is what this BLOG is about for me - pointing out the folks who I think are really out to do us wrong, scheming against us. And mentioning when I see someone trying to do us right - or someone who makes a good point (see my previous Feinstein post).
I have lots more to say - please read my posts -- please do use what works for you, and ignore the rest....its free. And its good to hear another point of view...at least I think so...
Pete
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Who should be a representative?
It would seem to me to be important to be one of the people represented. In other words - I am a California Native. I have traveled a lot, but pretty much always lived in California. So - I feel that if I wanted to run for an office representing California - or the area I live in California - that I am qualified to say that I know what the people here want or need -- because I am one of them.
But, if I move to Missourri -- it would take years for me to really get to know what is really going on there, and what the locals need or want. YEARS...
Same goes for City Council, County Supervisor, District of a State. It just seems to me that there should be a minimum time of at least 5 years - or maybe more - of residency before you could serve as a representative.....because you can't represent what you don't know about..
Even in California - I live in Northern California -- which seems to be a target for Southern California to steal from to support its growth - they take our water, highway and school funds -- and the list goes on and on -- I would hate to have someone move up here from down there - and then become our representative -- because they probably would sell us out to their home turf...at least that is what I would worry about...
Think about the people running to be your representative next election -- have they lived in your area long enough to really know what you need or want? Are they really just coming to your area to run for an alterior motive -- and could care less about you? Also, is your area just going to be used as a step towards something else - rather than a real earnest want to serve you?
Pete
But, if I move to Missourri -- it would take years for me to really get to know what is really going on there, and what the locals need or want. YEARS...
Same goes for City Council, County Supervisor, District of a State. It just seems to me that there should be a minimum time of at least 5 years - or maybe more - of residency before you could serve as a representative.....because you can't represent what you don't know about..
Even in California - I live in Northern California -- which seems to be a target for Southern California to steal from to support its growth - they take our water, highway and school funds -- and the list goes on and on -- I would hate to have someone move up here from down there - and then become our representative -- because they probably would sell us out to their home turf...at least that is what I would worry about...
Think about the people running to be your representative next election -- have they lived in your area long enough to really know what you need or want? Are they really just coming to your area to run for an alterior motive -- and could care less about you? Also, is your area just going to be used as a step towards something else - rather than a real earnest want to serve you?
Pete
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Why doesn't California gets its fair share?
Ever wonder why California doen't get its fair share of Federal Tax dollars? Why we don't get real help with the cost of illegal aliens? Why we get hammered every time there is a Federal money cut??? Why so many of our military bases got closed compared to others -- even at the cost of leaving the west coast wide open to attack?
I assume Oregon and Washington do too -- and that should be a hint.
Because only under an extremely rare situation would we ever make any difference in a Presidential election. By the time we vote - its over.
The year Bill Clinton first got elected, I was driving East on Hwy 80 about Dixon, Ca. at about 2 PM when KFBK radio announced Bill Clinton had won the election. Imagine that? For the first, and only time in my life to date, I was so angry that I actually had to pull over and park for a few minutes in the side of the highway until I cooled off a bit...
Ever since, I have paid attention - and we don't count out here. Oh sure, they count our votes -- but the other states close their poles earlier, and by the time our votes get counted -- its over. Could that be fixed - absolutely. Would it be difficult or expensive, not at all. Just make the polls open and close at the same real time coast to coast -- really, its that simple.
I wonder why nobody does that??
Pete
I assume Oregon and Washington do too -- and that should be a hint.
Because only under an extremely rare situation would we ever make any difference in a Presidential election. By the time we vote - its over.
The year Bill Clinton first got elected, I was driving East on Hwy 80 about Dixon, Ca. at about 2 PM when KFBK radio announced Bill Clinton had won the election. Imagine that? For the first, and only time in my life to date, I was so angry that I actually had to pull over and park for a few minutes in the side of the highway until I cooled off a bit...
Ever since, I have paid attention - and we don't count out here. Oh sure, they count our votes -- but the other states close their poles earlier, and by the time our votes get counted -- its over. Could that be fixed - absolutely. Would it be difficult or expensive, not at all. Just make the polls open and close at the same real time coast to coast -- really, its that simple.
I wonder why nobody does that??
Pete
Rush
I have listened to Rush Limbaugh since he started in Sacramento - over 20 years. He was really good until he went to New York. Had lots of good comments, and could explain his position well.....something happened in New York, and now he seems worthless. I haven't been able to listen to him for more than just a couple of minutes for years. Totally inefective, rude, racist, sexist - unable to make almost any point based on the facts and what is really behind them anymore -- and totally unable to explain why his postions have merit (if they do).
Such a waste.
Such a waste.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
So, why can't we woop on a little country like Iraq?
Hmmm... lets see. I remember a certain President who slashed the military and closed hundreds of bases -- in fact so many in California alone that the state would have filed bankruptcy if a state could....
The West Coast for all practable purposes is wide open for attack. What's it like where you live -- if someone attacked, how would defending troops get to your area deal with the situation -- probably not well anymore.
And that my friends was Bill Clinton. And, in my opinion, his lovely bride. Think about that the next time you even think about Hilary for President....
If we can't woop on Iraq -- what's going to happen if China comes knocking....who ya gonna call???? Not a Clinton -- I'm quite sure about that...
Pete
The West Coast for all practable purposes is wide open for attack. What's it like where you live -- if someone attacked, how would defending troops get to your area deal with the situation -- probably not well anymore.
And that my friends was Bill Clinton. And, in my opinion, his lovely bride. Think about that the next time you even think about Hilary for President....
If we can't woop on Iraq -- what's going to happen if China comes knocking....who ya gonna call???? Not a Clinton -- I'm quite sure about that...
Pete
Let's talk about the cost of a war...honestly
Now please believe me, regardless of what I write below -- losing one person is a HUGE loss in my opinion - but I do feel the opponents of Iraq have probably skewed the numbers and the death toll in their arguments favor. And I have a problem with that - why do they need to do that to make a point - why can't they just say the truth and trust that it will back their opinions up???
The cost of the war in Iraq seems inflated to me. Sure, we are spending a HUGE amount of money over there - but lets face it, we don't lay off all those troops if there is no war. We pay full price for them even if they are sitting on the couch eating potato chips .... really. And we have to have full combat gear for them "just in case" they need it. And they have to practice shooting, fighting, dropping bombs, driving, flying....even if there is no war. The Planes do touch and goes 24/7/365 where I live, and those are big planes - using lots of fuel and maintenance. So it appears to me, someone needs to determine how much a fully prepared military costs vs. the cost of one in Iraq and I bet the true cost of the war is much much less than the war opponents say...
And lets talk about the death toll. Again, let me say that one person killed is not good. However, this post is about reality folks. We have over 130,000 troops over there last I heard. Any of you from a town of that size? OK - Good, now open the paper and read the Obits -- I bet more people are dying in any town that size than are dying over in Iraq. OK - so you say, but the Military are typically fit young people - so -- how many military folks die each year without a war -- I bet if you get those numbers together, the death toll in Iraq vs. watching TV at home isn't really much different....
Just food for thought.
Pete
The cost of the war in Iraq seems inflated to me. Sure, we are spending a HUGE amount of money over there - but lets face it, we don't lay off all those troops if there is no war. We pay full price for them even if they are sitting on the couch eating potato chips .... really. And we have to have full combat gear for them "just in case" they need it. And they have to practice shooting, fighting, dropping bombs, driving, flying....even if there is no war. The Planes do touch and goes 24/7/365 where I live, and those are big planes - using lots of fuel and maintenance. So it appears to me, someone needs to determine how much a fully prepared military costs vs. the cost of one in Iraq and I bet the true cost of the war is much much less than the war opponents say...
And lets talk about the death toll. Again, let me say that one person killed is not good. However, this post is about reality folks. We have over 130,000 troops over there last I heard. Any of you from a town of that size? OK - Good, now open the paper and read the Obits -- I bet more people are dying in any town that size than are dying over in Iraq. OK - so you say, but the Military are typically fit young people - so -- how many military folks die each year without a war -- I bet if you get those numbers together, the death toll in Iraq vs. watching TV at home isn't really much different....
Just food for thought.
Pete
How long does a new government take??
Seems to me that lots of folks today are out of patience with Iraq for not getting their government together by now -and with the war continuing this long- after all they voted over a year ago. So, why can't they deal with all the outside influences from other countries and just be Iraq.
Maybe the mis-understanding for adults here is similar to our kids thoughts - today's kids can't understand what it would be like to watch black and white TV, no cell phone - and what is a record??? The US Government has been around for over 200 years - so we just tend to assume political life was always as it is now here - so why can't other coutries have it togethr like we do???
I seem to recall from High School History that the United States was first declared about 1776. And we had lots of infighting as well as outside interference for about 100 years -- and even a Civil War after 100 years. And we still have HUGE political issues due at least in large part to differences in religious beliefs - take abortion for example. Very difficult for a devoute Catholic to support Democrats because they are in favor of abortion...and religous groups are HUGE in politics here.
So maybe Iraq can't happen as fast as some folks think - and maybe that's not because Iraq is not working on it - but rather because some things take time...
Pete
Maybe the mis-understanding for adults here is similar to our kids thoughts - today's kids can't understand what it would be like to watch black and white TV, no cell phone - and what is a record??? The US Government has been around for over 200 years - so we just tend to assume political life was always as it is now here - so why can't other coutries have it togethr like we do???
I seem to recall from High School History that the United States was first declared about 1776. And we had lots of infighting as well as outside interference for about 100 years -- and even a Civil War after 100 years. And we still have HUGE political issues due at least in large part to differences in religious beliefs - take abortion for example. Very difficult for a devoute Catholic to support Democrats because they are in favor of abortion...and religous groups are HUGE in politics here.
So maybe Iraq can't happen as fast as some folks think - and maybe that's not because Iraq is not working on it - but rather because some things take time...
Pete
Why Pelosi should not ask for withdrawal date
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took office, and I watched it all unfold on Dish. Almost immediately a huge debate began – well, not really a debate – actually the Democrats one by one saying that if President Bush didn't start running the war in accordance with the 79 Point Peace Plan, they would not fund the war.
I also mentioned in an earlier post – my issue with the Democrats is that they say they are for the little guy, but the results of what they do actually hurt the little guys.
Reference the 79 Point Peace Plan - Page 66 bottom to 67 top – The point is not for the US to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal….but for US to depart in an orderly fashion as Iraq can take care of itself…THE DEMOCRATS DEMANDED BUSH FOLLOW THE 79 POINT PEACE PLAN – BUT NOW WANT TO SET TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL. Imagine that…the Democrats say one thing, and do another.
The reasoning for not setting time tables for withdrawal is obvious and spoken of in the Peace Plan – the violent people and enemies of Iraq will simply sit home, watch TV, and eat potato chips until the day after the US leaves --- then feast on Iraq. How is that in anybody’s interest? How does that help all the little people of Iraq?
I don’t believe the Democrats did not read the 79 Point Peace Plan, or that they didn’t understand it. I believe they are counting on the American People not reading the 79 Point Peace Plan – and just believing whatever the Democrats say…
The Democrats are using the War in Iraq to make Bush, and therefore the Republican Party look bad. They are messing with our Troops for political reasons. The people in the Armed Service are considered to be the little guy by most folks – isn’t that who the Democrats are supposed to be for? Then WHY WHY WHY are the Democrats messing with the little guys? Because they want to get a Democrat President – and that is more important to them than our troops…
Here is a link to the 79 Point Peace Plan. I have read every single word and studied all the information – have you? It might clear up a few things for you, as to who is messing with who…
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Pete
I also mentioned in an earlier post – my issue with the Democrats is that they say they are for the little guy, but the results of what they do actually hurt the little guys.
Reference the 79 Point Peace Plan - Page 66 bottom to 67 top – The point is not for the US to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal….but for US to depart in an orderly fashion as Iraq can take care of itself…THE DEMOCRATS DEMANDED BUSH FOLLOW THE 79 POINT PEACE PLAN – BUT NOW WANT TO SET TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL. Imagine that…the Democrats say one thing, and do another.
The reasoning for not setting time tables for withdrawal is obvious and spoken of in the Peace Plan – the violent people and enemies of Iraq will simply sit home, watch TV, and eat potato chips until the day after the US leaves --- then feast on Iraq. How is that in anybody’s interest? How does that help all the little people of Iraq?
I don’t believe the Democrats did not read the 79 Point Peace Plan, or that they didn’t understand it. I believe they are counting on the American People not reading the 79 Point Peace Plan – and just believing whatever the Democrats say…
The Democrats are using the War in Iraq to make Bush, and therefore the Republican Party look bad. They are messing with our Troops for political reasons. The people in the Armed Service are considered to be the little guy by most folks – isn’t that who the Democrats are supposed to be for? Then WHY WHY WHY are the Democrats messing with the little guys? Because they want to get a Democrat President – and that is more important to them than our troops…
Here is a link to the 79 Point Peace Plan. I have read every single word and studied all the information – have you? It might clear up a few things for you, as to who is messing with who…
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Pete
An Issue with Democrats
Here is an issue I have with the Democrat Party, which has shown its ugly self to me for a many years. The Democrats claim to fame is that they represent the "little guys" and specifically against the "big guys" --- regular working people against big business. But in fact the things they do consistenly accomplish exactly the opposite. Now, I'm not saying the Republicans - or any other political party - represents the little guys. The issue is that the Democrats claim they do - and they don't.
So, when they do things that hurt the little guys -- I see it like when a priest or teacher molests a kid. Same result, a kid got molested and that is truly horrible. But, 100 times worse becaues the person who molested the kid is a person who claims to stand for children and families....vs. anybody else. Like the vice cop who gets caught with a prostitute, the drug cop who gets caught using, Jesse Jackson cheating on his wife....much much worse than the average joe (or should I say John).
In California, anytime the Governor says he needs to cut the budget - the first programs the Legislature (always Democrat controled in California) threatens to cut are programs for retarded kids, or school breakfasts for poor kids --- NEVER the government pork rich people live off of.
The Legislature in California has pretty much done away with parental rights in this state - causing Calilfornia to be a Pedafile Heaven. How does that help the little guys?
The Legislature in California has tripled the paperwork for businesses in this state in the last 15 years. Now, for a big company - just add one low paid person to do the baloney paperwork and the percentage impact on profit is negligible - but for the little business, the percenage on profit is HUGE. How does that help the little guy?
Pelosi and her group are no better. They are messing with the housing market (see my post on How To Fail An Economy) - destroying thousands of little guys in the process, and making a few big lenders the ultimate winner -- how does that work for the little guys?
And messing with our troop funding, for no good reason. Either they should pass the funding, pass a revised total funding, or not pass any funding. Yet they delay the funding to make political points on issues they have not legal control over -- how to run our troops. And the troops and their families are getting hurt by it -- as well as the people in Iraq. So, how does that help the little guy..
The fact is, most of the Democrats in power could care less about the little guys. They have never been a little guy, never hung around with little guys, and have no idea what it is like to be a little guy. And to me, that makes them 100 times worse than all the other political parties -- because they consistently hurt the very people they claim to be supporting...
Just my take, from years of watching it happen and seeing the results.
Pete
So, when they do things that hurt the little guys -- I see it like when a priest or teacher molests a kid. Same result, a kid got molested and that is truly horrible. But, 100 times worse becaues the person who molested the kid is a person who claims to stand for children and families....vs. anybody else. Like the vice cop who gets caught with a prostitute, the drug cop who gets caught using, Jesse Jackson cheating on his wife....much much worse than the average joe (or should I say John).
In California, anytime the Governor says he needs to cut the budget - the first programs the Legislature (always Democrat controled in California) threatens to cut are programs for retarded kids, or school breakfasts for poor kids --- NEVER the government pork rich people live off of.
The Legislature in California has pretty much done away with parental rights in this state - causing Calilfornia to be a Pedafile Heaven. How does that help the little guys?
The Legislature in California has tripled the paperwork for businesses in this state in the last 15 years. Now, for a big company - just add one low paid person to do the baloney paperwork and the percentage impact on profit is negligible - but for the little business, the percenage on profit is HUGE. How does that help the little guy?
Pelosi and her group are no better. They are messing with the housing market (see my post on How To Fail An Economy) - destroying thousands of little guys in the process, and making a few big lenders the ultimate winner -- how does that work for the little guys?
And messing with our troop funding, for no good reason. Either they should pass the funding, pass a revised total funding, or not pass any funding. Yet they delay the funding to make political points on issues they have not legal control over -- how to run our troops. And the troops and their families are getting hurt by it -- as well as the people in Iraq. So, how does that help the little guy..
The fact is, most of the Democrats in power could care less about the little guys. They have never been a little guy, never hung around with little guys, and have no idea what it is like to be a little guy. And to me, that makes them 100 times worse than all the other political parties -- because they consistently hurt the very people they claim to be supporting...
Just my take, from years of watching it happen and seeing the results.
Pete
Who is worse?
It's one of those questions that makes me scratch my head - which person do I think is worse???
Pelosi, for buying votes with things like Peanut Farmer Relief - to get her peers to vote in favor of putting pull-out dates on the Iraq Funding ...
Or the Congress and Senate Members who sold her their votes...
Who is the worse person...???
Anyway - it does point to one truth -- she couldn't get the votes without buying them..
And that says HUGE things about whether she really understands what WE want, or has the power to buy what SHE wants..
Pete
Pelosi, for buying votes with things like Peanut Farmer Relief - to get her peers to vote in favor of putting pull-out dates on the Iraq Funding ...
Or the Congress and Senate Members who sold her their votes...
Who is the worse person...???
Anyway - it does point to one truth -- she couldn't get the votes without buying them..
And that says HUGE things about whether she really understands what WE want, or has the power to buy what SHE wants..
Pete
Do the Democrats want the 79 Point Peace Plan?
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took office, and I watched it all unfold on Dish. Almost immediately a huge debate began – well, not really a debate – actually the Democrats one by one saying that if President Bush didn’t start running the war in accordance with the 79 Point Peace Plan, they would not fund the war. And the Republicans getting up one by one and saying it was not Congress’s job to run a war, only to fund or not fund. There is no Constitutional provision for the Congress to tell the President how to run a war, that is his job.
I spoke earlier about the Power Grab the Democrats were attempting. Now I want to talk about what they said vs. what they did. It’s quite surprising, and will take a few posts. So, this is post 1 of a series...
Refer to the actual 79 Point Peace Plan - Properly called The Iraq Study Group Report - Pg. 12, last para. in the darkened area states that one problem with securing Baghdad is that once an area is cleared of insurgents, troops need to be left behind to keep the area clear – otherwise the insurgents just move ahead of the clearing troops, then move back around them and continue on (which is what was happening at that time). Pg. 71 address’s this by claiming we need to imbed 10,000 to 20,000 US troops into Iraq troops to perform “on the job training” (I admit, I would not volunteer to do this) – It states the this MAY be possible by removing troops from other areas of Iraq and using them, but also continues on Pg. 73 that the Peace Plan would support a short term Surge of American Troops to accomplish this mission. So, Bush said that he had conferred with his people, and decided to surge Bagdad with 20,000 troops AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS TOLD EVERYONE THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A TROOP SURGE. Imagine that, THE DEMOCRATS DON’T SUPPORT WHAT THEY DEMANDED BE DONE. I don’t believe the Democrats did not read the 79 Point Peace Plan, or that they didn’t understand it. I believe they are counting on the American People not reading the 79 Point Peace Plan – and just believing whatever the Democrats say…
The Democrats are using the War in Iraq to make Bush, and therefore the Republican Party look bad. They are messing with our Troops for political reasons. The people in the Armed Service are considered to be the little guy by most folks – isn’t that who the Democrats are supposed to be for? Then WHY WHY WHY are the Democrats messing with the little guys? Because they want to get a Democrat President – and that is more important to them than our troops…
Here is a link to the 79 Point Peace Plan. I have read every single word and studied all the information – have you? It might clear up a few things for you, as to who is messing with whom…
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Pete
I spoke earlier about the Power Grab the Democrats were attempting. Now I want to talk about what they said vs. what they did. It’s quite surprising, and will take a few posts. So, this is post 1 of a series...
Refer to the actual 79 Point Peace Plan - Properly called The Iraq Study Group Report - Pg. 12, last para. in the darkened area states that one problem with securing Baghdad is that once an area is cleared of insurgents, troops need to be left behind to keep the area clear – otherwise the insurgents just move ahead of the clearing troops, then move back around them and continue on (which is what was happening at that time). Pg. 71 address’s this by claiming we need to imbed 10,000 to 20,000 US troops into Iraq troops to perform “on the job training” (I admit, I would not volunteer to do this) – It states the this MAY be possible by removing troops from other areas of Iraq and using them, but also continues on Pg. 73 that the Peace Plan would support a short term Surge of American Troops to accomplish this mission. So, Bush said that he had conferred with his people, and decided to surge Bagdad with 20,000 troops AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS TOLD EVERYONE THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A TROOP SURGE. Imagine that, THE DEMOCRATS DON’T SUPPORT WHAT THEY DEMANDED BE DONE. I don’t believe the Democrats did not read the 79 Point Peace Plan, or that they didn’t understand it. I believe they are counting on the American People not reading the 79 Point Peace Plan – and just believing whatever the Democrats say…
The Democrats are using the War in Iraq to make Bush, and therefore the Republican Party look bad. They are messing with our Troops for political reasons. The people in the Armed Service are considered to be the little guy by most folks – isn’t that who the Democrats are supposed to be for? Then WHY WHY WHY are the Democrats messing with the little guys? Because they want to get a Democrat President – and that is more important to them than our troops…
Here is a link to the 79 Point Peace Plan. I have read every single word and studied all the information – have you? It might clear up a few things for you, as to who is messing with whom…
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Pete
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Senator Feinstein makes a good point!!
At the big debate in the Legislature last week, Senator Feinstein made a good point. California voted to fund Fetus Stem Cell research, even thought the Federal Government will not. Sounded good to a lot of people – but it is not working. Apparently rulings were cast that say NOTHING that is federally funded can be used in the research. Not the buildings, Equipment, she made comment – not even ink pens. This has created an accounting nightmare – because it is very difficult to determine which dollar is federal vs. state, and whether owned equipment (desks, chairs, $30,000 microscopes, test tubes, etc.) were funded in some part by federal dollars.
So, something has to be done, because the money voted to be used for research – is being used to buy equipment and buildings instead….so not much money is left for research.
This a good point – and it also shows how little the California Legislature, who set this vote up, understood what they were doing.
Of course the question I had then, and now is – If Biotech Companies are making RECORD PROFITS (and they are) – why do we need to fund their research? If they are the ones who will make the profits from the research, why don’t they pay for the research – why is the government getting involved at all??
And doesn’t that funding, which was heavily backed by the Democrats – which ends up helping the BIG BUSINESS BIOTECH FIRMS – fly in the face of their principal of being for the Little Guy, and specifically NOT the Big Guys???
But at any rate – being the vote was as it was – Senator Feinstein did make a good point….
Pete
So, something has to be done, because the money voted to be used for research – is being used to buy equipment and buildings instead….so not much money is left for research.
This a good point – and it also shows how little the California Legislature, who set this vote up, understood what they were doing.
Of course the question I had then, and now is – If Biotech Companies are making RECORD PROFITS (and they are) – why do we need to fund their research? If they are the ones who will make the profits from the research, why don’t they pay for the research – why is the government getting involved at all??
And doesn’t that funding, which was heavily backed by the Democrats – which ends up helping the BIG BUSINESS BIOTECH FIRMS – fly in the face of their principal of being for the Little Guy, and specifically NOT the Big Guys???
But at any rate – being the vote was as it was – Senator Feinstein did make a good point….
Pete
How do you cause the US economy to fail??
There are a few parts of the US Economy that are so significant that if they fail, the whole economy takes a huge hit. One of those is housing. If you don’t build houses, you don’t need shopping centers, or schools, or highways, or streets, or water / sewer plants. So, other than maintenance requirements – the Construction Industry takes a dive. 1/3 of the workers in the US are construction workers – that, my folks is a HUGE portion. If they don’t have money to spend – retail tanks. Grocery stores, clothing, automobiles, refrigerators – everything that people buy costs money, and if 1/3 of the people don’t have money – guess what happens to all the business’s they can’t buy from, and all the people who work in those businesses – DOMINO. The US Economy tanks.
Now, normally when the housing market falters in one area, it picks up in another area – for regional business reasons. Such as – land / houses get too expensive in one place for the wages, so folks move to less expensive areas – which then build houses for them, and industry moves for the lower property rates too – and so forth – so, the odds of a the Housing Industry Faltering Nationally is so small, it wouldn’t be considered as a serious consideration. But, what if you could make that happen? Hmmm… What if you did several things that most folks would not piece together as a total – and you managed to trash the housing market Nation Wide???? DOMINO…
What if an economy is robust, everybody is working – the jobless rate is lower than we would expect to see just from people who are in between jobs by choice. There is literally so much work, we can’t get workers – you know, like it has been for about 3 years (ending right after the elections last year). And one political party starts telling all its members over and over and over that the economy is tanking – for 2 years. Ever since the previous legislature election in which they did not win. And, what if those folks who don’t personally check the facts out ( and to be honest, that would be the majority of the folks of EVERY political party) – hear their party leaders and act accordingly – cut back on spending –“ hey, I may be rolling in money, but apparently lots of other folks are not – so I better cut back because my party leaders are telling me hard times are here”…And what if that party was about 50% of the people in the US – NATION WIDE? That’s right, what if nothing is wrong – but ½ the people cut back on spending NATION WIDE? Wanna guess??? One thing they quit buying is houses…big ticket item. People stopped buying houses in the midst of one of the most robust economies in history, so builders stopped building them. DOMINO….what falls next – people are out of work, foreclosures start happening…
What if some folks in the legislature get together and change the rules on buying houses – Nation Wide? What if they said that if an investor buys a house that is in foreclosure, then the investor has to sell the house back anytime within 2 years for the same price paid. Now the investor takes all the risk, and if the market pulls out, or the seller’s financial position improves within two years – the investor has to give back the house and all of the profit -- so, why would the investor take all the risk, just to give any potential profit away? THEY AREN’T – INVESTORS HAVE LEFT THAT MARKET. So, then you end up with a lot of houses going into repossession, that otherwise would not have. Even almost brand new houses. And the Legislature is right on the spot to make sure we all know about it – which tends to prove that the economy is tanking ( unless you realize the Legislature caused it to tank). DOMINO…
So now the Investors can buy the house on the courthouse steps at the repossession sale – for even less. The original owner’s credit is ruined, the lender looses money, and the investor makes out. Hmmmm. But, what if you also change the rules on buying houses again? Normally an investor shows up at the court house steps with a credit line – and uses it to buy a house. Then ASAP, the investor takes out a Home Loan for that house – pays down the credit line – and can go do it again. So – what if the legislature changes home lending rules to make it so you can’t re-finance a house within 6 to 9 months after you buy it? The investors can only buy one house every 6 to 9 months – suddenly the lenders can’t even sell the houses at auction. And again, the Legislature is right on the spot to make sure we know it which tends to prove that the economy is tanking ( unless you realize the Legislature caused it to tank). DOMINO…
Then what happens if the Legislature has an interview with the Feds who make home lending rules ( I watched it – saw the lips move – heard the words), and the Legislature tells the Feds that they simply do not understand economics – imagine that. The Legislature claims to have statistics that show that the average home loan that does not default has a 19% down payment. The average home loan that defaults has an average down payment of 9%. No mention of where they got those “statistics” ( I wonder why). Then they say that based on their research, lending at 9% down or less is not prudent. It should be a minimum of somewhere between 9 and 19%, if not 19%. Now, other than 2nd or 3rd time homebuyers moving up in the market – I have never heard of someone putting 19% down on a house – even in the 1970’s when houses where $30,000 – we were scrounging to get the 3% down for an FHA loan, and the additional 1/2 point it costs for the FHA Loan Insurance. And we didn’t default. Well, I can tell you what happens – that conversation scared the living daylights out of the lenders – and they laid off thousands of workers and closed hundreds of offices, and canceled thousands of loans – all across the Nation…THE NEXT DAY. Who wants to take a chance on the Legislature passing something that finds any loan with less then 19% down as being Not Prudent Lending – and doing something similar than they did to investors? Better to stop loaning money, than to have to forgive a bunch of loans…DOMINO…
RECAP: First, they worked very hard to convince folks the economy was bad – when obviously it was not. Which caused people to quit buying houses, SO the economy did start to tank. I say SO to point out that the economy started to tank BECAUSE people stopped buying homes, rather than people quit buying homes because the economy was tanking…
Next people who were out of work due to housing shutting down, began to have loans go into foreclosure - so they made it difficult to sell a house if the owners could not make their payments, causing the houses to go into repossession.
Next they changed the rules so that people couldn’t even buy houses in repossession – so the lender got stuck with the houses…
Next they threaten to change the lending rules – and the lenders gave up.
And as a result – the Legislature has caused a Nation Wide Housing Stoppage. DOMINO – our economy now truly is in peril!!!
WHY, WHY, WHY. Because they needed our economy to tank, so they could get elected, and then get the Presidency. And who gets hurt – all the little people. And the gamble is that right after the next Presidential Election, they can reverse all these new rules and threats – and the economy will recover – and they can say WE SAVED THE ECONOMY ( which they caused to fail).
What if it tumbles so far, they can’t save it? What if they cause a depression? What about all the little people they are harming – you know, the ones they claim to be fighting for? And who wins in two years – who owns all those houses? The big big lenders who can afford to let inventory sit. And who is the winner in the end? Those big big lenders – the same folks our Legislature says they are defending the little guy from…
Hmmm…
Pete
Now, normally when the housing market falters in one area, it picks up in another area – for regional business reasons. Such as – land / houses get too expensive in one place for the wages, so folks move to less expensive areas – which then build houses for them, and industry moves for the lower property rates too – and so forth – so, the odds of a the Housing Industry Faltering Nationally is so small, it wouldn’t be considered as a serious consideration. But, what if you could make that happen? Hmmm… What if you did several things that most folks would not piece together as a total – and you managed to trash the housing market Nation Wide???? DOMINO…
What if an economy is robust, everybody is working – the jobless rate is lower than we would expect to see just from people who are in between jobs by choice. There is literally so much work, we can’t get workers – you know, like it has been for about 3 years (ending right after the elections last year). And one political party starts telling all its members over and over and over that the economy is tanking – for 2 years. Ever since the previous legislature election in which they did not win. And, what if those folks who don’t personally check the facts out ( and to be honest, that would be the majority of the folks of EVERY political party) – hear their party leaders and act accordingly – cut back on spending –“ hey, I may be rolling in money, but apparently lots of other folks are not – so I better cut back because my party leaders are telling me hard times are here”…And what if that party was about 50% of the people in the US – NATION WIDE? That’s right, what if nothing is wrong – but ½ the people cut back on spending NATION WIDE? Wanna guess??? One thing they quit buying is houses…big ticket item. People stopped buying houses in the midst of one of the most robust economies in history, so builders stopped building them. DOMINO….what falls next – people are out of work, foreclosures start happening…
What if some folks in the legislature get together and change the rules on buying houses – Nation Wide? What if they said that if an investor buys a house that is in foreclosure, then the investor has to sell the house back anytime within 2 years for the same price paid. Now the investor takes all the risk, and if the market pulls out, or the seller’s financial position improves within two years – the investor has to give back the house and all of the profit -- so, why would the investor take all the risk, just to give any potential profit away? THEY AREN’T – INVESTORS HAVE LEFT THAT MARKET. So, then you end up with a lot of houses going into repossession, that otherwise would not have. Even almost brand new houses. And the Legislature is right on the spot to make sure we all know about it – which tends to prove that the economy is tanking ( unless you realize the Legislature caused it to tank). DOMINO…
So now the Investors can buy the house on the courthouse steps at the repossession sale – for even less. The original owner’s credit is ruined, the lender looses money, and the investor makes out. Hmmmm. But, what if you also change the rules on buying houses again? Normally an investor shows up at the court house steps with a credit line – and uses it to buy a house. Then ASAP, the investor takes out a Home Loan for that house – pays down the credit line – and can go do it again. So – what if the legislature changes home lending rules to make it so you can’t re-finance a house within 6 to 9 months after you buy it? The investors can only buy one house every 6 to 9 months – suddenly the lenders can’t even sell the houses at auction. And again, the Legislature is right on the spot to make sure we know it which tends to prove that the economy is tanking ( unless you realize the Legislature caused it to tank). DOMINO…
Then what happens if the Legislature has an interview with the Feds who make home lending rules ( I watched it – saw the lips move – heard the words), and the Legislature tells the Feds that they simply do not understand economics – imagine that. The Legislature claims to have statistics that show that the average home loan that does not default has a 19% down payment. The average home loan that defaults has an average down payment of 9%. No mention of where they got those “statistics” ( I wonder why). Then they say that based on their research, lending at 9% down or less is not prudent. It should be a minimum of somewhere between 9 and 19%, if not 19%. Now, other than 2nd or 3rd time homebuyers moving up in the market – I have never heard of someone putting 19% down on a house – even in the 1970’s when houses where $30,000 – we were scrounging to get the 3% down for an FHA loan, and the additional 1/2 point it costs for the FHA Loan Insurance. And we didn’t default. Well, I can tell you what happens – that conversation scared the living daylights out of the lenders – and they laid off thousands of workers and closed hundreds of offices, and canceled thousands of loans – all across the Nation…THE NEXT DAY. Who wants to take a chance on the Legislature passing something that finds any loan with less then 19% down as being Not Prudent Lending – and doing something similar than they did to investors? Better to stop loaning money, than to have to forgive a bunch of loans…DOMINO…
RECAP: First, they worked very hard to convince folks the economy was bad – when obviously it was not. Which caused people to quit buying houses, SO the economy did start to tank. I say SO to point out that the economy started to tank BECAUSE people stopped buying homes, rather than people quit buying homes because the economy was tanking…
Next people who were out of work due to housing shutting down, began to have loans go into foreclosure - so they made it difficult to sell a house if the owners could not make their payments, causing the houses to go into repossession.
Next they changed the rules so that people couldn’t even buy houses in repossession – so the lender got stuck with the houses…
Next they threaten to change the lending rules – and the lenders gave up.
And as a result – the Legislature has caused a Nation Wide Housing Stoppage. DOMINO – our economy now truly is in peril!!!
WHY, WHY, WHY. Because they needed our economy to tank, so they could get elected, and then get the Presidency. And who gets hurt – all the little people. And the gamble is that right after the next Presidential Election, they can reverse all these new rules and threats – and the economy will recover – and they can say WE SAVED THE ECONOMY ( which they caused to fail).
What if it tumbles so far, they can’t save it? What if they cause a depression? What about all the little people they are harming – you know, the ones they claim to be fighting for? And who wins in two years – who owns all those houses? The big big lenders who can afford to let inventory sit. And who is the winner in the end? Those big big lenders – the same folks our Legislature says they are defending the little guy from…
Hmmm…
Pete
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
So - How do you get a Stem Cell?
Fetus Stem Cell Research is one of those moral dilemmas like abortion, and it is current in the Senate. How do you get a Fetus Stem Cell? Is a fetus a human? Is abortion “right” or “wrong” – and are there situations that change its context? Hmmm
The discussion currently going on in the Senate really isn’t about whether Stem Cell research should be done or whether it will ever amount to anything more than a waste of time, effort, and money – but really about how we get the stem cells used in the research. And so this post is only about how we get stem cells for research -- whether that research has any merit would be a whole different post. I have a couple of thoughts about how we get stem cells:
The argument that the aborted fetus should not be used for Stem Cell Research held by the Church simply makes no sense to me on the grounds that it is not consistent with other Church Positions and Beliefs. It lacks faith in Humans to do what is “right”.
Church: We can’t use an aborted fetus for stem cell research because the Church considers a fetus to be human, and we can’t kill a human….
Reply: The Church has no problem with transplants from born people who have been killed… The Church has no concern that someone will kill someone to get transplant organs. I feel the doctor discussions that could happen, “this person has been so badly damaged there is zero chance of survival, and Luke over there will die in hours without a new heart – so, let’s pronounce this guy dead now and take the heart”. Would that be wrong – absolutely, yet I believe it is a much more plausible scenario to harvest from someone you don’t even know, than to terminate your own personal fetus so it can be harvested for research…
Church: Someone will get pregnant, just to abort the fetus so it can be used for research purposes.
Reply: If the Church does not believe people will kill other people to harvest transplant organs, why does it believe women will get pregnant and or abort fetuses just for research? Does the Church have no understanding of how difficult it is for a Mother to abort a fetus? I would say aborting a her own fetus just for research purposes would be a WAY more difficult thing for a woman to do than doctors killing people with whom they have no personal connection to get transplant organs…and therefore would be way more rare of an occurrence.
Next is the new concept some have come up with to get around the abortion issue – when artificial insemination is done, several eggs are test tube fertilized in the lab -- but only one is used to implant back into the mother. The rest are wasted, thrown away. So, we should use those wasted eggs for stem cell research, because they have no chance of survival anyway…so they might is well get used for some good. Notice, they are very careful not to call those fertilized eggs fetuses?
Let me point out the fallacy of this argument….I had a friend years ago who worked for McDonalds. They had to throw away all the hamburgers, etc. left over at closing – can’t sell them tomorrow. So, the boss decided to me a nice guy and tell the employees – hey, you can take home whatever is left at closing. Sounds like sound policy – don’t waste food. So, the employees started making a big batch of whatever they liked just before closing – and then taking home the “leftovers”. The boss soon had to end the take home policy, or go bankrupt. So, how many “extra” eggs do you need to fertilize for an artificial insemination? If this thought process passes, LOTS, THOUSANDS, MILLIONS – after all, they won’t go to waste.
To me, the dilemma is the same. An egg fertilized in a test tube is just as much of a fetus as the one in a woman is. In fact, I wonder how they get away with fertilizing several with the intent of only keeping one to begin with – seems they should be fertilizing one, and if it does not take, then fertilizing another…rather than creating lives they know will just be terminated.
So, if you ask me – and granted, nobody has – which is part of the reason I started this BLOG – so I can say my piece even though nobody asked me….If stem cell research is going to happen, I trust the mothers of this world to not create life just to provide fetus’s for research WAY MORE than I trust lab technicians at fertility clinics. So, I vote for using aborted fetuses rather than test tube fetuses.
Pete
The discussion currently going on in the Senate really isn’t about whether Stem Cell research should be done or whether it will ever amount to anything more than a waste of time, effort, and money – but really about how we get the stem cells used in the research. And so this post is only about how we get stem cells for research -- whether that research has any merit would be a whole different post. I have a couple of thoughts about how we get stem cells:
The argument that the aborted fetus should not be used for Stem Cell Research held by the Church simply makes no sense to me on the grounds that it is not consistent with other Church Positions and Beliefs. It lacks faith in Humans to do what is “right”.
Church: We can’t use an aborted fetus for stem cell research because the Church considers a fetus to be human, and we can’t kill a human….
Reply: The Church has no problem with transplants from born people who have been killed… The Church has no concern that someone will kill someone to get transplant organs. I feel the doctor discussions that could happen, “this person has been so badly damaged there is zero chance of survival, and Luke over there will die in hours without a new heart – so, let’s pronounce this guy dead now and take the heart”. Would that be wrong – absolutely, yet I believe it is a much more plausible scenario to harvest from someone you don’t even know, than to terminate your own personal fetus so it can be harvested for research…
Church: Someone will get pregnant, just to abort the fetus so it can be used for research purposes.
Reply: If the Church does not believe people will kill other people to harvest transplant organs, why does it believe women will get pregnant and or abort fetuses just for research? Does the Church have no understanding of how difficult it is for a Mother to abort a fetus? I would say aborting a her own fetus just for research purposes would be a WAY more difficult thing for a woman to do than doctors killing people with whom they have no personal connection to get transplant organs…and therefore would be way more rare of an occurrence.
Next is the new concept some have come up with to get around the abortion issue – when artificial insemination is done, several eggs are test tube fertilized in the lab -- but only one is used to implant back into the mother. The rest are wasted, thrown away. So, we should use those wasted eggs for stem cell research, because they have no chance of survival anyway…so they might is well get used for some good. Notice, they are very careful not to call those fertilized eggs fetuses?
Let me point out the fallacy of this argument….I had a friend years ago who worked for McDonalds. They had to throw away all the hamburgers, etc. left over at closing – can’t sell them tomorrow. So, the boss decided to me a nice guy and tell the employees – hey, you can take home whatever is left at closing. Sounds like sound policy – don’t waste food. So, the employees started making a big batch of whatever they liked just before closing – and then taking home the “leftovers”. The boss soon had to end the take home policy, or go bankrupt. So, how many “extra” eggs do you need to fertilize for an artificial insemination? If this thought process passes, LOTS, THOUSANDS, MILLIONS – after all, they won’t go to waste.
To me, the dilemma is the same. An egg fertilized in a test tube is just as much of a fetus as the one in a woman is. In fact, I wonder how they get away with fertilizing several with the intent of only keeping one to begin with – seems they should be fertilizing one, and if it does not take, then fertilizing another…rather than creating lives they know will just be terminated.
So, if you ask me – and granted, nobody has – which is part of the reason I started this BLOG – so I can say my piece even though nobody asked me….If stem cell research is going to happen, I trust the mothers of this world to not create life just to provide fetus’s for research WAY MORE than I trust lab technicians at fertility clinics. So, I vote for using aborted fetuses rather than test tube fetuses.
Pete
Monday, April 9, 2007
REPLY: EFCA Updates - What if you don't want to be Union?
Apparently some people are reading my BLOG. For some reason, instead of replying to it by using the comments to my BLOG, they replied in their own BLOG. For some reason they didn’t tell me that they were replying, nor does their BLOG allow comments. But then again, their BLOG appears to me to be representing the Union position on the issue…so that fits.
http://efcaupdate.squarespace.com/home/2007/4/6/answering-petes-question.html
They say my indifference is masking fear… what indifference – I clearly stated that I believe what they are trying to do is WRONG WRONG WRONG. What fear – I posted in my BLOG for the whole world to see it, is that what a fearful person would do?
Next they say I am brainwashed. I allowed that some people may want to be Union, while others do not. Seems to me that a brainwashed person would not allow for both sides….but would rather just beat on one point of view – as does their BLOG….hmmm
Next they blither some weird stuff which seems to end up giving the general impression that individualism is a problem for unions….YEAH
Then they go on to say that forcing people to be union is justified, because if the unions don’t perform as expected – they won’t last. TOTAL LIE. Its almost impossible for an employer to go back to being non-union once they sign a Union Agreement. And the worker can lose their retirement if they go to work non-union after they sign up with the Union.
Then they go on to say something to the effect that non-union workers are free-loaders. Not only is that another lie, but it is downright insulting. Any person who can keep a job in a free market society ( non-union ), sure must not be a free-loader. And the Unions wonder why many people don’t want to be a part of them…
And next is a doosy. If I disagree with the Free Choice Act, then I must hate people. Right, that’s why I have this BLOG – So, I can let everyone know what I think about things and hopefully it will make a positive difference to them and the world – and all because I hate them…BALONEY.
And lastly they quote a senator who says opposing EFCA is a waste of time because there is no debate here. Do we have to pay the Senators for the time they spent debating something for which there was no debate? IT’S A HUGE DEBATE. It goes to the very core of the political process of the United States – the Secret Ballot and Right to Privacy.
And I hope they read this post too..
Pete
http://efcaupdate.squarespace.com/home/2007/4/6/answering-petes-question.html
They say my indifference is masking fear… what indifference – I clearly stated that I believe what they are trying to do is WRONG WRONG WRONG. What fear – I posted in my BLOG for the whole world to see it, is that what a fearful person would do?
Next they say I am brainwashed. I allowed that some people may want to be Union, while others do not. Seems to me that a brainwashed person would not allow for both sides….but would rather just beat on one point of view – as does their BLOG….hmmm
Next they blither some weird stuff which seems to end up giving the general impression that individualism is a problem for unions….YEAH
Then they go on to say that forcing people to be union is justified, because if the unions don’t perform as expected – they won’t last. TOTAL LIE. Its almost impossible for an employer to go back to being non-union once they sign a Union Agreement. And the worker can lose their retirement if they go to work non-union after they sign up with the Union.
Then they go on to say something to the effect that non-union workers are free-loaders. Not only is that another lie, but it is downright insulting. Any person who can keep a job in a free market society ( non-union ), sure must not be a free-loader. And the Unions wonder why many people don’t want to be a part of them…
And next is a doosy. If I disagree with the Free Choice Act, then I must hate people. Right, that’s why I have this BLOG – So, I can let everyone know what I think about things and hopefully it will make a positive difference to them and the world – and all because I hate them…BALONEY.
And lastly they quote a senator who says opposing EFCA is a waste of time because there is no debate here. Do we have to pay the Senators for the time they spent debating something for which there was no debate? IT’S A HUGE DEBATE. It goes to the very core of the political process of the United States – the Secret Ballot and Right to Privacy.
And I hope they read this post too..
Pete
Sunday, April 8, 2007
What is our Congress really up to???
What is going on in the new Democratic Congress – I mean – what really is going on, not what they say, not what they broadcast.
As I said before, I was home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took office and I watched the eventful day on dish…and what I saw struck me. There will be more posts to follow this one about that day…and how it helps tell what is REALLY going on.
Ms. Pelosi very firmly stated several times that one of her main goals was to be sure President Bush got the message that he would start running the war in Iraq exactly as called for in the, then recently published, 79 Point Peace Plan. And if he did not do that, the Democrats would cut off the funding of the war.
A huge debate followed with virtually every Democrat who spoke saying the same thing, and virtually every Republican saying – now you really need to think about this, the President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, and we (Congress) can not tell him what to do with them. We don’t have that authority…we can only decide whether to fund or not fund.
And if my memory of High School and College government classes serves me correctly – the President is in fact the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, with the final word. Now, that may be a good thing or not --- one person with the say so to launch our Military. I have personally seen it be both. However, whether it should be that way is not the point of this post.
Back to those Government Classes – those of you who have had them may remember that there are 3 Separate But Equal Branches of our Government: the Executive ( President ), Legislative ( Congress / Senate ) and Judicial ( Supreme Court ). And having those 3 Separate But Equal Branches is a key part of what makes our Political Process work. But you may not realize that is a farce today. It is a farce because what they don’t tell you in basic Government classes is that early in our nation’s history the Executive and Legislative Branches became embroiled in a stalemate over something ( frankly I don’t remember what). The Judicial Branch ( who by the nature of the job really is filled with some of the brightest minds in our Country ) said – hey guys, how about letting the Supreme Court settle the argument. We will look at it and decide which of you is correct by the Constitution. Hey, that made sense – so the President and Legislature agreed. The Supreme court made its decision and voila – problem solved….only it wasn’t solved. By doing what the Supreme Court told them to do, the other two branches became lower, never again to be equal with the Supreme Court. That is where the terms like – Governing by Judicial Revue come from. The Supreme Court can veto or authorize anything by interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make what they want to have happen, be correct. They just have to wait for a case to cross their desks that is discussing the issue they want to deal with. And by accepting the Judicial Decision once, long ago – the other two Branch’s decisions and actions are forever subject to approval / rejection by the Judicial Branch….seemed like such a small little thing – let them settle an argument….
The most famous example of the Supreme Courts Power of course, in my life time, is Roe vs. Wade – abortion. You can’t kill another Human Being. So, if a fetus were to be considered Human, then abortion would be illegal. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to say that a fetus is not Human, so aborting it is not a crime….Again, I am not taking sides on abortion here – simply pointing out that it is a classic case of how the Supreme Court is more powerful than the President or Legislature. And of course – how we count votes in Florida is another famous case…
At any rate – What was Nancy Pelosi and her group really up to that day. Well one thing is they were counting on Bush to be stupid enough to take their bait. Hey, the heat is on about Iraq! Bush could just say – Congress says I have to follow the 79 Point Peace Plan and so I am going to do what they say – now whatever happens as a result, blame Congress not me. Win – Win – He gets his funding for the war, and Congress takes the heat instead of him…how could he turn that bait down??? Why would he turn it down??
Because the instant Bush said what Pelosi wanted him to say – he would no longer be Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces – Congress would be. And the President would not be Equal to the Legislative Branch ever again – but 3rd on the totem pole of government…
That’s what was really going on folks…a fight for control of the military. An attempt by one Branch of our Government to grab power from another Branch. It had nothing to do with Iraq – except that the political heat over Iraq was the bait to get the control. Pelosi and her group were using the War in Iraq as a pawn for their power grab.
And please take note – as it will be important in further posts – a few days later the President said that after careful review of the 79 Point Peace Plan by HIS ADVISORS – Bush decided to follow it, by starting a 20,000 troop surge …. Very carefully worded to NOT indicate that he was doing it because Congress told him to….VERY CAREFULLY WORDED WITH GOOD REASON…. He is still Commander and Chief – and an equally powerful Branch…
Thanks for reading, Pete
As I said before, I was home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took office and I watched the eventful day on dish…and what I saw struck me. There will be more posts to follow this one about that day…and how it helps tell what is REALLY going on.
Ms. Pelosi very firmly stated several times that one of her main goals was to be sure President Bush got the message that he would start running the war in Iraq exactly as called for in the, then recently published, 79 Point Peace Plan. And if he did not do that, the Democrats would cut off the funding of the war.
A huge debate followed with virtually every Democrat who spoke saying the same thing, and virtually every Republican saying – now you really need to think about this, the President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, and we (Congress) can not tell him what to do with them. We don’t have that authority…we can only decide whether to fund or not fund.
And if my memory of High School and College government classes serves me correctly – the President is in fact the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, with the final word. Now, that may be a good thing or not --- one person with the say so to launch our Military. I have personally seen it be both. However, whether it should be that way is not the point of this post.
Back to those Government Classes – those of you who have had them may remember that there are 3 Separate But Equal Branches of our Government: the Executive ( President ), Legislative ( Congress / Senate ) and Judicial ( Supreme Court ). And having those 3 Separate But Equal Branches is a key part of what makes our Political Process work. But you may not realize that is a farce today. It is a farce because what they don’t tell you in basic Government classes is that early in our nation’s history the Executive and Legislative Branches became embroiled in a stalemate over something ( frankly I don’t remember what). The Judicial Branch ( who by the nature of the job really is filled with some of the brightest minds in our Country ) said – hey guys, how about letting the Supreme Court settle the argument. We will look at it and decide which of you is correct by the Constitution. Hey, that made sense – so the President and Legislature agreed. The Supreme court made its decision and voila – problem solved….only it wasn’t solved. By doing what the Supreme Court told them to do, the other two branches became lower, never again to be equal with the Supreme Court. That is where the terms like – Governing by Judicial Revue come from. The Supreme Court can veto or authorize anything by interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make what they want to have happen, be correct. They just have to wait for a case to cross their desks that is discussing the issue they want to deal with. And by accepting the Judicial Decision once, long ago – the other two Branch’s decisions and actions are forever subject to approval / rejection by the Judicial Branch….seemed like such a small little thing – let them settle an argument….
The most famous example of the Supreme Courts Power of course, in my life time, is Roe vs. Wade – abortion. You can’t kill another Human Being. So, if a fetus were to be considered Human, then abortion would be illegal. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to say that a fetus is not Human, so aborting it is not a crime….Again, I am not taking sides on abortion here – simply pointing out that it is a classic case of how the Supreme Court is more powerful than the President or Legislature. And of course – how we count votes in Florida is another famous case…
At any rate – What was Nancy Pelosi and her group really up to that day. Well one thing is they were counting on Bush to be stupid enough to take their bait. Hey, the heat is on about Iraq! Bush could just say – Congress says I have to follow the 79 Point Peace Plan and so I am going to do what they say – now whatever happens as a result, blame Congress not me. Win – Win – He gets his funding for the war, and Congress takes the heat instead of him…how could he turn that bait down??? Why would he turn it down??
Because the instant Bush said what Pelosi wanted him to say – he would no longer be Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces – Congress would be. And the President would not be Equal to the Legislative Branch ever again – but 3rd on the totem pole of government…
That’s what was really going on folks…a fight for control of the military. An attempt by one Branch of our Government to grab power from another Branch. It had nothing to do with Iraq – except that the political heat over Iraq was the bait to get the control. Pelosi and her group were using the War in Iraq as a pawn for their power grab.
And please take note – as it will be important in further posts – a few days later the President said that after careful review of the 79 Point Peace Plan by HIS ADVISORS – Bush decided to follow it, by starting a 20,000 troop surge …. Very carefully worded to NOT indicate that he was doing it because Congress told him to….VERY CAREFULLY WORDED WITH GOOD REASON…. He is still Commander and Chief – and an equally powerful Branch…
Thanks for reading, Pete
Saturday, April 7, 2007
So - How much taxes do you pay?
I have a couple of posts about the day in question, but only time for one now - will get to the other later -- which is HUGE also --
I happened to be home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took her seat. I watched as she joined a fellow up on the podium before she even sat down to work and announced - The people of the United States do not pay enough taxes. We are going to make sure they pay more...
Maybe I don't get it. I thought our elected representatives were supposed to get the most out of our dollars - stretch them as far as possible. But, before she even took office, sat down at her desk, said bring me the budget figures -- she had already determined that we should pay more.
Now, I'm not going to lie and claim poverty. We eat 3 meals a day and have a roof over our heads. We work at least 5 days a week on average...but we do pay what I consider to be a lot of taxes. And I don't think I should pay more.
Do you realize that if you don't make money, and therefore don't pay taxes, you get what they call an "earned tax credit" from the government of about $3,000. How does that work? How is it earned if you didn't pay anything to begin with? How is it a tax credit when you didn't pay anything to get a credit from? Huh?
And while we are on the subject, think about this -- I pay taxes every year. Have since I was 16. When I dial 911 do they come faster, give me priority? Do I drive on better roads? Do I get better parks or public schools for my kids? Do I get off of a ticket?
Nope, Nope, Nope, and Nope. So, why -- that's right I actually ask why - do I have to pay more taxes than the people who sit on the couch, eat potato chips, and watch TV all day while I work --- and to add insult to injury, why do they get $3,000 dollars back, when they didn't pay to begin with??? Huh???
How does that work??? Is that why Nancy and her colleges need more of my tax dollars?
And while we are on the subject - I know some folks who work for H&R Block. They tell me the first people in every year are the Pimps with their ladies. And the ladies, due to some fluke in the tax laws, share kids that are not even their own -- get their $3,000 quick pay ( whatever is left of it after the H&R charges ) and turn it over to the Pimp in front of the tax preparer -- and the next night the Pimp shows up with another of his ladies....Just so you know who is getting that good samaritan, help the little guy, "$3,000 earned tax credit".
Pete
I happened to be home sick the day Nancy Pelosi took her seat. I watched as she joined a fellow up on the podium before she even sat down to work and announced - The people of the United States do not pay enough taxes. We are going to make sure they pay more...
Maybe I don't get it. I thought our elected representatives were supposed to get the most out of our dollars - stretch them as far as possible. But, before she even took office, sat down at her desk, said bring me the budget figures -- she had already determined that we should pay more.
Now, I'm not going to lie and claim poverty. We eat 3 meals a day and have a roof over our heads. We work at least 5 days a week on average...but we do pay what I consider to be a lot of taxes. And I don't think I should pay more.
Do you realize that if you don't make money, and therefore don't pay taxes, you get what they call an "earned tax credit" from the government of about $3,000. How does that work? How is it earned if you didn't pay anything to begin with? How is it a tax credit when you didn't pay anything to get a credit from? Huh?
And while we are on the subject, think about this -- I pay taxes every year. Have since I was 16. When I dial 911 do they come faster, give me priority? Do I drive on better roads? Do I get better parks or public schools for my kids? Do I get off of a ticket?
Nope, Nope, Nope, and Nope. So, why -- that's right I actually ask why - do I have to pay more taxes than the people who sit on the couch, eat potato chips, and watch TV all day while I work --- and to add insult to injury, why do they get $3,000 dollars back, when they didn't pay to begin with??? Huh???
How does that work??? Is that why Nancy and her colleges need more of my tax dollars?
And while we are on the subject - I know some folks who work for H&R Block. They tell me the first people in every year are the Pimps with their ladies. And the ladies, due to some fluke in the tax laws, share kids that are not even their own -- get their $3,000 quick pay ( whatever is left of it after the H&R charges ) and turn it over to the Pimp in front of the tax preparer -- and the next night the Pimp shows up with another of his ladies....Just so you know who is getting that good samaritan, help the little guy, "$3,000 earned tax credit".
Pete
Friday, April 6, 2007
What if you don't want to be in a union???
Hi Folks - Let me preface this post by saying it has nothing to do with whether being in a Union is a good or bad thing, for or against -- it is all about having someone bully someone else into doing something they don't want to do...and that I want to be upfront about -- IS WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I may not have time for much more today - I do have lots to post from earlier dates, but I received an email today from a congress woman that I feel needs to be posted. To preface this, let me tell you that I have recently been trying to send my stand on issued our congress is voting on to my representative. Apparently the system is set up to prevent that. I don't know if anyone else is having similar problems - When I go to the congress or senate website and punch in my address - it tells me who my representatives are and how to contact them. I do that and receive an automated reply that they are not my representative and refer me to another -- who does the same thing back to the original -- so the system appears to me to be created to keep us from actually giving our imput to our representatives -- Somehow I got my original imput to her, but when I tried to send the reply below, her site kicked back that she is not my representative now...anyway, the email is below...
This is about a Union backed program to push more companies to sign Union Contracts. Workers of all companies have always ( since the 1930's ) had the right to vote as to whether to unionize the company they work for by secret ballot - similar to how we vote at the poles, no names and nobody knows specifically who votes which way, just a tally of the votes for or against - the reason for this was specifically to avoid peer pressure or thugs from threatening people to vote a certain way, and therefore insuring that each worker got to vote their own personal concience....that is gone now, due to a Union Backed bill being passed by our new Democrat Congress...
EMAIL:
Hi Ms. Tauscher - Sometimes I listen to someone and realize they have no idea of what they speak. Sadly, your letter below is exactly such a case. I have a Bachelor Degree in Construction Engineering and over 29 years experience in managing construction - both Union and Non-Union. I have extensive education and experience in union issues.
From the employer side, any employer can choose to be a union company by signing the union agreement.
AND - It has always been the case that the workers of any employer could have a secret ballot as to whether to be union, and the majority vote decides. That is, and has been, the right of the workers since the 1930’s. And if the workers vote to be union, their employer has to sign with the union and be a union company. By having a secret ballot each worker is able to vote his or her own conscience without fear of reprisal from other workers -- just like when we go to the ballot box to vote for members of Congress. So -- if the workers of any company have not voted to be union, it is because they CHOOSE not to be union -- as they have the choice, just as their employer does.
You have taken that away from every person in the United States. History has proven that without the secret ballot, people vote for whatever the biggest thug wants them to vote for. And if you have studied the history of unions, they are thugs -- consistently shown to be tied to the mafia even.
I own a non-union construction company in California. My workers make more than Union workers, and have better benefits. The workers you speak of who make less than Union scale do so because their skills are not up to Journeyman levels -- or they would be hired for the higher paying jobs -- we can not get enough qualified workers in either the non-union or union sectors. So, the problem is not that the people you say you are concerned with are not getting paid union scale -- but that they are not good enough at what they do to merit that rate of pay.
Have a nice day - hope you do well, knowing that you are voted into office by the secret ballot process you took away from every worker in this country.
Please call if you have questions or need more information.
CONGRESSWOMANELLEN O. TAUSCHER10TH DISTRICT ~ CALIFORNIA
1034 Longworth HOB - Washington, D.C. 20515 - (202) 225-18802121 North California Blvd. Suite 555, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - (925) 932-8899
Dear Sir :
Thank you for contacting me about the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views.
While I appreciate your concerns, I supported the Employee Free Choice Act in order to ensure that workers are afforded the basic right to choose, whether to form and join a union. There is powerful evidence that America 's middle class is stronger when workers join together and bargain for better wages, working conditions, and benefits. Indeed, union workers' median weekly earnings are thirty percent higher than nonunion workers; eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance; and sixty-eight percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit pension plan.
The Employee Free Choice Act does not mandate that workers join a union. Nor does it abolish the secret ballot election process or make union organization more vulnerable to fraud and coercion. Rather, it empowers workers to form a union through a method of their choice, including through majority signup - a right currently granted them only if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act provides American workers with a choice in determining their future economic prosperity. As America 's workers strive for fairer treatment at work and greater economic prosperity, I believe that this is the least we can do for them.
I appreciate hearing from you and value your input in developing sound policies that benefit California 's working families and businesses. To receive updates on this and other issues that I am working on, visit my website at ...
Sincerely,Ellen O. TauscherMember of Congress
Now folks - if you doubt that the new Democrat controllers are actively trying to force unions on everyone, regardless of their wishes - read on -
Democratic presidential candidates yesterday pledged to block any new free-trade agreements that don't get tougher on trading partners and promised to begin a new era of rebuilding unions as a part of the American economy.
"We should stand with those who stand for us -- not for CEOs who pick up their headquarters and move them to Dubai, not for people who make record profits and just can't figure out how to share those with their employees," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, who polls show is leading the Democratic field.
Yesterday's session for the unions that make up the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department capped a week of wooing unions....
And they wonder why I don't stand for them....I am not Union, so they don't stand for me..
Hope this was informative,
Pete
I may not have time for much more today - I do have lots to post from earlier dates, but I received an email today from a congress woman that I feel needs to be posted. To preface this, let me tell you that I have recently been trying to send my stand on issued our congress is voting on to my representative. Apparently the system is set up to prevent that. I don't know if anyone else is having similar problems - When I go to the congress or senate website and punch in my address - it tells me who my representatives are and how to contact them. I do that and receive an automated reply that they are not my representative and refer me to another -- who does the same thing back to the original -- so the system appears to me to be created to keep us from actually giving our imput to our representatives -- Somehow I got my original imput to her, but when I tried to send the reply below, her site kicked back that she is not my representative now...anyway, the email is below...
This is about a Union backed program to push more companies to sign Union Contracts. Workers of all companies have always ( since the 1930's ) had the right to vote as to whether to unionize the company they work for by secret ballot - similar to how we vote at the poles, no names and nobody knows specifically who votes which way, just a tally of the votes for or against - the reason for this was specifically to avoid peer pressure or thugs from threatening people to vote a certain way, and therefore insuring that each worker got to vote their own personal concience....that is gone now, due to a Union Backed bill being passed by our new Democrat Congress...
EMAIL:
Hi Ms. Tauscher - Sometimes I listen to someone and realize they have no idea of what they speak. Sadly, your letter below is exactly such a case. I have a Bachelor Degree in Construction Engineering and over 29 years experience in managing construction - both Union and Non-Union. I have extensive education and experience in union issues.
From the employer side, any employer can choose to be a union company by signing the union agreement.
AND - It has always been the case that the workers of any employer could have a secret ballot as to whether to be union, and the majority vote decides. That is, and has been, the right of the workers since the 1930’s. And if the workers vote to be union, their employer has to sign with the union and be a union company. By having a secret ballot each worker is able to vote his or her own conscience without fear of reprisal from other workers -- just like when we go to the ballot box to vote for members of Congress. So -- if the workers of any company have not voted to be union, it is because they CHOOSE not to be union -- as they have the choice, just as their employer does.
You have taken that away from every person in the United States. History has proven that without the secret ballot, people vote for whatever the biggest thug wants them to vote for. And if you have studied the history of unions, they are thugs -- consistently shown to be tied to the mafia even.
I own a non-union construction company in California. My workers make more than Union workers, and have better benefits. The workers you speak of who make less than Union scale do so because their skills are not up to Journeyman levels -- or they would be hired for the higher paying jobs -- we can not get enough qualified workers in either the non-union or union sectors. So, the problem is not that the people you say you are concerned with are not getting paid union scale -- but that they are not good enough at what they do to merit that rate of pay.
Have a nice day - hope you do well, knowing that you are voted into office by the secret ballot process you took away from every worker in this country.
Please call if you have questions or need more information.
CONGRESSWOMANELLEN O. TAUSCHER10TH DISTRICT ~ CALIFORNIA
1034 Longworth HOB - Washington, D.C. 20515 - (202) 225-18802121 North California Blvd. Suite 555, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - (925) 932-8899
Dear Sir :
Thank you for contacting me about the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views.
While I appreciate your concerns, I supported the Employee Free Choice Act in order to ensure that workers are afforded the basic right to choose, whether to form and join a union. There is powerful evidence that America 's middle class is stronger when workers join together and bargain for better wages, working conditions, and benefits. Indeed, union workers' median weekly earnings are thirty percent higher than nonunion workers; eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance; and sixty-eight percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit pension plan.
The Employee Free Choice Act does not mandate that workers join a union. Nor does it abolish the secret ballot election process or make union organization more vulnerable to fraud and coercion. Rather, it empowers workers to form a union through a method of their choice, including through majority signup - a right currently granted them only if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act provides American workers with a choice in determining their future economic prosperity. As America 's workers strive for fairer treatment at work and greater economic prosperity, I believe that this is the least we can do for them.
I appreciate hearing from you and value your input in developing sound policies that benefit California 's working families and businesses. To receive updates on this and other issues that I am working on, visit my website at ...
Sincerely,Ellen O. TauscherMember of Congress
Now folks - if you doubt that the new Democrat controllers are actively trying to force unions on everyone, regardless of their wishes - read on -
Democratic presidential candidates yesterday pledged to block any new free-trade agreements that don't get tougher on trading partners and promised to begin a new era of rebuilding unions as a part of the American economy.
"We should stand with those who stand for us -- not for CEOs who pick up their headquarters and move them to Dubai, not for people who make record profits and just can't figure out how to share those with their employees," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, who polls show is leading the Democratic field.
Yesterday's session for the unions that make up the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department capped a week of wooing unions....
And they wonder why I don't stand for them....I am not Union, so they don't stand for me..
Hope this was informative,
Pete
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Opening
Hi to All Who Read my blog -
Things are currently and will continue to happen in this world that I want to put my 2 cents in about -- and that is what will be happening in this blog. It's about what I believe is really happening - underneath all the baloney that gets said or done -- what I believe is really going on.
I invite you to read, and hope you get something of use from my point of view.
Pete
Things are currently and will continue to happen in this world that I want to put my 2 cents in about -- and that is what will be happening in this blog. It's about what I believe is really happening - underneath all the baloney that gets said or done -- what I believe is really going on.
I invite you to read, and hope you get something of use from my point of view.
Pete
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)