What does it mean to vote with your “lady parts”?

So for those of you who feel that voting for your “lady parts” is so important that you place that issue above all others, including the national security of this country, I want you to think about something.  If you watch some of the population control movies from the 60s and 70s, you will notice that it isn’t something just encouraged but that it is required.

I ask you to think about this.  What is to stop a country that is giving you free birth control at your desire, free sterilization as you may wish and free abortions as needed to change that to mandatory birth control, mandatory sterilization and mandatory abortions.

Two things to consider as you try to say to yourself that this is not possible.  Think about who created those movies that were set so far in the future in about the year 2000.  Are they the same who are supporting the idea of free birth control, sterilization and abortions now?  Then think of how the democrats seem to embrace many of the ideals of the Chinese government.  Perhaps, one of those many ideals is the government’s ability to control births.

Since you are basing your vote on protecting the right for women to choice, perhaps you may want to investigate and decide if you vote for “free stuff” that in the future the government may decide isn’t so much about choice but required choices?  It is your vote.  Since, choice is so important to you and it is the only issue you will use to determine how you vote, then I suggest you vote as if your freedom of choice depends on it, which means to say no thanks to the strings attached to the “free stuff” they have put out as bait.  Personally, I find the economy, national security more important and that is what I am basing my vote on.

Advertisements

Is the government holding back the private sector from doing what they do best?

I saw part of a commercial on tv last night for a news channel.  It bothered me, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on the reason why.  It kind of reminded me about privatization, which was a really big topic back in the 90s.  To put privatization in very simple terms, it is the idea that it is better for the government to contract for work to be done than to do it themselves because the government can’t be experts in everything.  Thus, it makes more sense for an expert to provide the service.  Also, it can be most cost effective.  At the time one area where privatization was growing was in managing prisons.  If you look at how a prison is run and how it makes sense for one company to provide the services in various areas rather than having each city, county, state have to basically provide the same services but on a much smaller basis then you can see why privatization was viewed as the direction governments needed to go.

So back to the commercial I saw.  It had to do with a bridge that can only be built by the government, thus, the reason why we need to watch that channel because they see the need for the government to provide things like bridges for us.  Finally, I realized the problem with this idea.  Have you noticed what happens when a bridge is built or a road is built.  The government contracts with a company that specializes in road building or building bridges to do the work.  Perhaps a government will do basic work, but ultimately they will find an expert to do the work.  Thus, while this commercial was about the need for government, government eventually needs the private sector to do the work.  Come to think of it, sadly the point of the commercial was that the private sector wouldn’t invest in building bridges thus that is the reason the government is needed.  Perhaps, if the government would allow the private sector to do what they do best, the private sector would invest in bridges.  As a side note, if you look back at roads, ferries and bridges back in the Colonial times, they usually were built and maintained by private citizens.

Political thoughts of the day

This morning I woke up to hearing a comment being said about how great it is that Obama is willing to quote scripture and talk about Easter when it isn’t politically correct to do so.  I wanted to scream at them, what about last year when he refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer, and if I remember correctly cancelled it.  Don’t you find it interesting that he is more Christian than last year?  Hmm, I wonder what the difference can be?  Could it be that he has announce is once again in campaign mode since he just announced that he is running for a second term?

Enough about the pResident, because I actually have been thinking about Trump running for President lately.  But, before I talk about Trump, I will say that I really like Sarah Palin, but there is one little point about her that is making me feel like she won’t be a strong enough President. It is the fact that she picks venues to speak at and interviews to give that are safe.  Many times, she is preaching to the choir.  Maybe it is something that the choir needs to hear, but it is still a bit too safe for me.  I can see why she doesn’t want to deal with the LSM, but at the same time, if she can’t deal with them on her terms then how will she be seen as strong enough by other world leaders.  I just don’t feel like she can hold her own as the leader of the free world.  Until I see an interview that is not in a safe venue, I can’t support her as President.

I think she is in a great position to speak out and ensure that this country goes back to the roots of what the founding fathers wanted this country to be.  I once was told that while the Republic they founded was imperfect, it could be looked at as being imperfect for a reason.  I’m all about less government for the simple reason when we let the government do for us and for others, we lose a lot more than we realize.  When we expect the government to take care of the homeless, we lose a bit of the part of us that needs to care for others and want to help others.  I think that by letting the government do this, we have become too selfish to help others.  Speaking of this, and then I will return to my first comment, I think that the tax code should allow 100% deductions to charitable organizations no matter what income level you are at.  While people may give for the tax benefit at the same time they are thinking about doing for others, even if at a very small level.

I have been reading a lot of comments and blog posts that talk about Trump not even being a RINO but a Democrat in sheep’s clothing.  I can see how many can see this of him.  I am surprised that I find myself agreeing with him in what I am hearing from him. But, at the same time, I can see that he is probably more old school Democrat when there was a much thinner line separating the two parties when it comes to their platforms.  His donations to Democrats don’t bother me too much because it is due to two things.
The first is that he lives in very blue states, so it really is hard to support a Republican that can win.  The second is that at his level, he has to donate to those he thinks will win as a form of protection money.  I read that he had made a statement that there should be a 1 time tax on the extremely wealthy to help get us back on level ground economically.  I was disappointed to find out that he stated this in 1999.  (While I do find it interesting that he thought we needed to do that when Clinton was supposed to have been such a strong President when it came to the economy.  Actually, I realize that there was somewhat of a fake economy at the time due to dot coms and Y2K preparation that had increased salaries out of the normal range in some areas.)  But, without realizing the time frame of when he said it, I thought it made perfect sense for now.  I would want a protection to be made where it could only happen one time.  But, economically speaking, I do think in a way it would stimulate the economy if it put a lot of other long term tax deductions and spending cuts in the mix.  I say this because when the stock market crashed in 2008, most high end investors lost about 25% of the value of their investments.  I am sure that they would be willing to lose a portion of that in order to be put in the position to gain it back based on a better economy.  I know I usually say that taxes don’t stimulate the economy, but until we stop the spending and get rid of the debt, the economy is going to be standing still.

Finally, please put two and two together if you don’t realize this.  Corporations do not pay taxes.  Granted, they file long tax returns just like you do showing how much money they made, their deductions, and then the amount they have due and just like you this income is based on money that they have received for products and services rendered.  Here is the thing that I don’t think liberals realize.  The money they receive for products and services comes from consumers.  It may take a step or two before it gets to a individual consumer if they are a business to business service provider.  But, they figure in what they expect to pay for taxes into the cost of doing business and then put this in the cost that they charge the consumer.  So, you are basically paying a portion of their tax when you purchase any service or product from a corporation.  So, if you want to pay higher prices on your purchases than lets make sure that corporations pay more than their share of tax.  Or you can just send pay more when you buy items and tell the cashier to tell the corporation to apply this to their tax general ledger line items or you can pay the IRS more when you pay your taxes with a note that since you want to make sure corporations pay a higher tax, you have figured out this is the amount you would have paid the corporations for items if they had been charged at the higher rate.  Sounds kind of stupid doesn’t it.  Personally, I am wondering if the economy would thrive if corporations tax rates were greatly reduced.  I suspect it would because why state and local governments give tax breaks to corporations that move into their areas.

Our Bill of Rights

Tonight I was watching a film set in 19th century England.  Suddenly, there was a gun being fired in one of the scenes.  Something about that scene reminded me of a comment made on SNL a couple of weeks ago about gun control.  And, that led me to realizing that sometimes we all forget about what the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights.  It was all about living in a period of time with a very oppressive government.  The separation of church and state was to ensure that the government didn’t have the church as part of the state as was and still is in England and it was more about the government restricting people to only one church.  The freedom of speech had to do with not fearing the government when it came to speaking your mind, as was something feared at the time in that the government did try to restrict people’s ability to speak their mind.  The right to bear arms came from the government trying to restrict a person’s ability to have guns.  Are we seeing a pattern here?  In the mid 1700s, the English government was all about controlling the people who lived across the ocean from them.  Sadly, we are at a point where the government is trying to use the constitution to do what the founding fathers did not want.  They are trying to use the constitution to restrict us or control us rather than use it as a guide for government to be less by not restricting We the People.  We have to remember that it wasn’t about giving us restrictions about what we could or could not do but it was about restricting the government so that We the People were able to hold on to the  unalienable rights that as the Declaration of Independence says are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

From USHistory.org, here is the text of the Declaration of Independence

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

 

 

Arizona tragedy and my thoughts

I won’t be putting links on this post because if you really want to see what I am talking about I am sure a quick search will lead you to it.  Yesterday, a guy who probably is a paranoid schizophrenic took a gun to shoot a group of people that included a federal judge and a Congresswoman.  Because the congresswoman happens to be a Democrat, it has turned into a political issue.  Maybe he did so because of something in his mind that felt like she hadn’t lived up to his political expectations or maybe it was an attempt to commit suicide by hoping that someone would kill him while he was shooting others.  He is the only one who knows what is going on his mind that led him to this decision.  However, the one thing that I am finding interesting that no one is really talking about is that he bought the gun in November of last year (2010.)  Based on the fact that election day was early in the month, chances are that he bought the gun after the election.  So, maybe he was upset over what had happened with the election or maybe he just decided to buy a gun in November.  Once again, he is the only one who really knows what was going on in his mind in November.

Of course, even though he is reported to be a liberal, the left and the media is still trying to blame it on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  They just don’t get it do they.  They really don’t see that they do the same things they they try to blame on the right.  They targeted certain seats (and some of those seats were held by Democrats.)  I can’t remember offhand, but I do believe the left targeted Giffords seat because she wasn’t liberal enough.

Sadly, lives were lost and a guy who had severe mental health issues life is over.  I hope that Giffords comes out of this with minimal brain problems and is able to quickly recover from the brain injury so that she can return to Congress.  While everyone is trying to say it was Palin and the Tea Party talk that caused it, they are failing to see something.  Giffords wasn’t acting like a Democrat in Congress when it reconvened in January.  She voted against Pelosi.  She introduced a bill that would reduce the Representatives’ pay by 5% and she had participated in the reading of the Constitution along with the Republicans.  I had just noticed her the other day when I read about the bill she introduced.  I liked the way she was thinking and thought she actually represented her constituents rather than her party.  It didn’t matter to me that she was a Democrat because I sensed that she got what the people are saying.  Sadly, it is because she does represent them that she had arranged to listen to them that she ended up being in a position to be shot.  Sadly, it is because of all this that this tragedy is being turned into a three ring circus.

In closing I will say that as people start to talk about gun control, I am reminded of what Rendell said after the killings at the Amish schoolhouse – you can’t legislate crazy.  Also, it reminds me of a few years ago, when in Britain, which has strict gun laws had a rash of knifings at night because when a criminal can’t use a gun as a weapon they use what they can get their hands on.

Soros investments pay off when it comes to the new scanners

I wanted to link this article about Soros and the money he is making on the new airport scanners. Gee, isn’t it interesting that whatever decision Obama or the White House makes that is bad for the citizens of this country seems to be a money maker for Soros. For instance, look at how much money Soros made when oil drilling was stopped in the gulf. People living in the gulf lost a lot but Soros invested in offshore drilling in Brazil with a little company named Petrobras.

From Gateway Pundit

My thoughts on TSA and new airport security

I apologize in advance, this post may get a bit yucky to read but it has to be said. On the news today, the stories coming out about the TSA and the new choices of of either having porn pictures taken of you or to be groped and felt up by TSA agents are making the headlines. I am hearing accounts being told of men having their pants unzipped in front of everyone so that the TSA agents can pat down all of them. I am hearing about the idea of the Opt out day so that rather than having a porn picture that can make the rounds of the Internet taken of you, you will opt for the pat down.

I have come thisclose three time in my life to terrorist attacks. I know it happens and has happened for many decades. No matter what is done, terrorists will find a way to attack those they want to attack. Airplanes have just become a way to do so. Back in the 1970s, trains in Europe were usually the places that terrorists attacked. Many train stations didn’t have lockers in them, because the lockers would go boom. I like to fly and don’t really mind the security that much. Well, lately for some reason the underwires in my European bras have set off the machines, so I have to have the wand go over my body to check what is causing the machines to be set off. After the last time, I thought I might have to just take off my bra before I go through security in order to avoid setting off the machine.

So, it is with the ideas of TSA agents groping people in their private parts and my need to go trough security braless really put some thoughts in my head. The first is that I don’t want to have a picture taken of me naked and I don’t think anyone else would like to see it. Then, I thought about them patting me down if I don’t have a bra on. Hey, when I was growing up, I believe that was considered second base. But, then I wondered about the groping in the underwear area and this is where it gets kind of disgusting. First of all, most women have that time of the month or as some say the time when their Aunt Flo visits. And, for some women, it is a really yucky time of the month. Yep, can you imagine what it will be like to either have a picture taken or to be patted down at that time of the month? Or what about older people who have a bit of bladder issues and who for various medical conditions that cause them to have to be patted down. Or maybe that is the solution, we all prepare on our day of flying by wearing adult diapers. It will be a long day so might as well be prepared for not having the time to use a restroom. Go ahead, make my day and dare to grope me down there.

Updated to ask question. How invasive is the x ray machine. Will it show the innards of people’s bodies? I ask this based on my point about women’s menstrual cycles. Will it show that a woman is wearing a tampon? Will they wonder if it is something else and cause women to be checked more “intimately”? Also, would it also show if a woman has an iud? If so, wouldn’t this be a violation of privacy, I know like that rest of it isn’t a violation of privacy. But, it seems to me that showing this information as part of an x-ray appears to be an illegal search because it would show things that a person doesn’t want others to see. I don’t want others to know when I am wearing a tampon and yet without my permission it is there for all TSA agents to see.