This is an excerpt from an email I received from my sister a couple of days ago.  I love her, but her attitude in this email demonstrates why there is something terribly wrong with how unemployment compensation is handled by the government and by many of its recipients today.

My unemployment ends after this month, so yes it is time to wean myself off the ‘free money‘ nipple.   We almost have our CC bills all paid off.   Brian has been working Tons of hours and days down here.   Poor guy!    I am hoping to be able to wait until after summer before I have to find a job.  It will be tight, but we have sacrificed, as you have, to be able to do that for our kids.

Ironically, the next day I see that an extension of unemployment benefits was approved. I guess that means many people like my sister will get an extension of their paid vacation.

My father-in-law set a different example.  He was laid-off in November of 2008, and was very diligent about finding a new job. He used the Internet and beat the pavement.  He sent out dozens of resumes, hand delivering those to local companies, with follow up calls and visits, all of which resulted in several promising interviews. By the end of December he had two job offers, and by January he was working full time again. There be it for less money than previously, but he was working and earning his own keep and that was important to him.  He had always done that.  He was embarrassed to have lost his job even though his former employer’s closure had nothing to do with him. Maybe he was lucky to only take 8 weeks of unemployment, but for him that was 8 weeks too many.  He took the money because like so many, he had bills to pay and mouths to feed, and more importantly he had not planned for unemployment: he had not saved for the possibility of such a rainy day.  There was no need to because like so many he has come to rely on the government for such things.

Okay, for all our progressive free-ride-advocate co-workers and relatives, it’s time for a simple and easy to understand constitutional lesson.

Hey, tell them it’s free, and maybe they’ll take their anything-the-other-side-says-is-nonsense ear muffs off for a second and learn something, like why Leader Obama is not the scholar he has been hyped to be. 

Lesson 1: A national tax for doing nothing (i.e. being taxed for not buying health insurance as mandated by the federal government) is a CAPITATION and must be proportioned, and because Leader Obama’s mandate is not proportioned it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Lesson 2: The automatic penalty for not buying health insurance in the recently passed healthcare deform legislation is either a tax, or it is a BILL OF ATTAINDER, which is just as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Throughout history, Democrats, also known as liberals, progressives, and dumbasses have fallen into at least one of two categories:

(1) Naïve do-gooders who don’t know the meaning of too much of a good thing, and think that giving until it hurts is sage advice.

(2) Narcissistic control-freaks who all dream of being the beloved Caesar or slave master, and truly believe that freedom is tyranny and tyranny is freedom.

And no matter which category they fall into, all Democrats invariaby express the traits of Hypocritical elitist-bigots who believe they are intellectually superior to all, that they alone are above fray, and that they alone can solve America’s problems, but ironically hate Americans.

Democrats spend countless hours pointing out the faults in the opponents eyes while ignoring that in their own.   And although they claim to love America, they clearly hate and can’t stand Americans as is evidenced by the ease and speed for which they can write off those who disagree with them as being ignorant hicks, religious zealots, gun nuts, or racists who blindly follow demagogues, and who are too stupid to know what is best.  

One of the surest tests of whether you’re arguing with a Democrat is if they try to win the argument by citing their degrees or titles as if such things were indisputable evidence of their superior logic, and the validity and reliability of their facts.

Democrats say they want to defend the constitution, but they’re surprisingly adept at ignoring it whenever they want the federal government to force people to buy health insurance, to deny someone the right to own and bear arms, to freely practice their own religion, or to freely do business or farm within their own state. 

Complain, criticize, or forewarn of the damage their policies will do, and Democrats will accuse you using fear to manipulate the perception of Americans as if Americans are incapable of deliberative thought. 

Oh but their alarms are legitimate, sincere, and are never designed to invoke fear (as a tool of Persuasion) – i.e. humanity faces imminent catastrophic calamities of biblical proportions unless our government takes drastic and immediate action;  47 million Americans are being denied health care;  evil insurance companies abandon and shun the sick out of sheer greed (the wellbeing of their general policy holders being irrelevant);  opposition to a black president is racially motivated;  and arguments for greater nationnal security actually mask a very real conspiracy to expand American dominance and imperialism abroad and to oppress opposition at home.  Gosh, now that’s scary…. I’m serial.

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.  – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.*

I teach government and recently in our discussion of politics, a group of my students explained that a major reason why they support the Democrats and Obama was due in major part to their desire for social justice, and their belief that Obama and the Democrats were working to achieve social justice while the Republicans and Conservatives were not. Some even pointed out that they believed that conservative Christians were hypocrites for not pursuing social justice more.

As a conservative Christian and a supporter of the Republican party I reflexively cringed and silent protests exploded in my head.  Clearly my Liberal students had a perverted sense of social justice, and I thought, I must set them straight.  However, as a parent of young children who are exposed to liberal teachers who have no inhibitions about preaching their liberal/pro-Obama crap to my kids, I always try to take a less bigoted approach. 

Apparently, Liberals and Conservatives have two different ideas of what is social justice I concluded, and possibly they might not be aware of the conservative idea. So I asked my students what their definition of social justice was, and as I expected, it was a liberal definition.  I said that that was only one opinion of social justice and a liberal one, and then I asked if anyone knew what Conservatives believed social justice to be, and no one had a clue (That is if you disregard the comments about how conservatives value money over human suffering, and survival of the fittest/social darwin crap). I said that I thought they had a real good understanding of the liberal view of social justice, but not the conservative view.

I informed them that for Conservatives, justice was less about equality, and more about protecting each person’s right to their life, liberty, and property.  The story of Solomon’s wise judgment came to mind, so I shared that, and on the board they listed elements to the liberal definition, and along side it I wrote the elements of the conservative definition. All in all it was a good discussion. For those interested, I have created this diary to lay out the substance of that discussion, and at least what I view as the politics of social justice.

Solomon’s Wise Judgment

16 Now two women who were harlots came to the king, and stood before him. 17 And one woman said, “O my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house; and I gave birth while she was in the house. 18 Then it happened, the third day after I had given birth, that this woman also gave birth. And we were together; no one was with us in the house, except the two of us in the house.

19 And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. 20 So she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from my side, while your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. 21 And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, there he was, dead. But when I had examined him in the morning, indeed, he was not my son whom I had borne.”

22 Then the other woman said, “No! But the living one is my son, and the dead one is your son.” And the first woman said, “No! But the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” Thus they spoke before the king.

23 And the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son, who lives, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! But your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.’”

24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one, and half to the other.”

26 Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other said, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.”

27 So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.”

28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice. – 1 Kings 3:16-28

  

Liberals generally believe social justice means forcing people to make amends for the past mistakes and wrongs of others, while correcting the inequities that exist in present society, and they (Liberals) believe that the government should encourage and pursue this brand of social justice rather than to enable the opposite.

Conservatives generally believe social justice means people are whenever possible, responsible for themselves; that they do not rely on the charity or tax of others, unless they absolutely can’t help themselves, and they (Conservatives) believe that the government should encourage and pursue this brand of social justice rather than to enable the opposite.

For many Liberals correcting present inequities (social justice) means that all people are given a fair share which is a more equal share, even if they did not earn or inherit it, and even if this requires forcing others to give up a major portion of their possessions.  Apparently their Bibles are missing the last three versus of the third chapter of 1Kings (1 Kings 3:26-28).

For many Conservatives social justice means that people ought to keep their fair share, which is whatever a person earns or inherits, minus the tax for protecting their rights, and promoting the common good, and minus the gifts they offer to help others.

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives want people who can’t help themselves to suffer, and both want to help people, and both want people to be responsible, but they rank these later two priorities differently.

In general, Liberals are willing to let people get a free ride, if it makes helping others (who are deserving) easier, while Conservatives are willing to let people experience hardship (tough love), if it encourages them to be more independent, responsible, thrifty, and industrious.

Finally, for each, the common good (the general welfare) is closely related to whatever helps a society achieve and maintain the goal of social justice, as they see it.

I was reading the google translation of the Honduran Constitution from Spanish to English, and something didn’t look right with article 374:

 Article 374 .- It may be reformed, in any case, Article, this Article, the constitutional articles which refer to the form of government, the national territory, the presidential term, the ban to be new President of the Republic The citizen who has played under any title and refers to those who can not be President of the Republic for the subsequent period.

This is the original Spanish version:

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

I’m thinking someone mysteriously forgot to place, or intentionally removed ”not” after “It may…” in article 374.

The Crucial Facts in Honduras

MSM Disregards the Most Crucial Facts in Honduras

Every time I read or view a story on the alleged Honduran coup, I want to pull my hair out (luckily I have very little to pull) because 9 times out of 10 they (MSM) completely miss the most crucial facts:

First, according to the Honduran Constitution, if the President violates the article against consecutive presidential terms or the article that limits a presidential term to four years, or even PROPOSES the reform of these articles directly or indirectly, then he is to immediately cease in his function as President, and is then unable to hold any public office in Honduras for ten years.  This provision was inserted into their Constitution to help ensure that no President would do precisely what Mr. Zelaya did, which was to try to amend a part of the Honduran constitution that according to that constitution cannot be amended. 

Second, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Zelaya’s actions (in regards to the referendum) constituted an attempt to propose a change to the presidential term limits which he cannot do without losing his position, and as such the Honduran Supreme Court found, in accordance with their constitution, that Mr. Zelaya was no longer the President of Honduras. Case closed.

 Here are is an overview of the relevent articles in the Honduran constitution.

Here is an English translation of the Honduran constitution.  See for yourself

Added note: Even w/o article 239, Mr. Zelaya’s actions caused him to lose his Honduran citizenship, as per article 42, which in effect disqualifies him to be the Honduran president according to article 238.

On a side note, we also have provisions in our Constitution that can’t be amended:  we can make any amendment provided “… that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Notice this article of our constitution says “no State, without ITS consent, shall be deprived ITS equal suffrage as opposed to saying, “the PEOPLE or the ELECTORS of a State,” without THEIR consent shall not be deprived THEIR equal suffrage in the Senate.

I guess Mr. Zelaya must be a progressive too, as he favored the rule of the majority (democracy) over the rule of law (constitution) as did progressives in our country when they imposed the 17^th Amendment on us. (Just checking to see if anyone is awake)

(I originally posted this as a reply to another diary, but as I want to say more on this subject later I have chosen to make it a separate diary)

I believe our founding fathers would trade what currently masquerades as federalism in this country today for what they had under British rule in a second.

In 1994 we Republicans had the Contract w/ America, but what we need today is a 2nd Declaration of Independence.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating anything as ridiculous as succession or the like, but rather a return to the federalism envisioned by our founding fathers.

I believe the common enemy of all Americans is the federal gov’t, and a more concerted fight to limit its powers over us is a fight that will unite all Americans.

Republicans could lead this fight, if we’re bold enough to take the challenge.

Returning decisions on church and State, abortion, schools, obscenity, and intrastate commerce to State and local gov’ts empowers us all, and if we don’t approve of the decisions, we can always move to a State or community that we find more acceptable, and anyways on these issues, I’d rather be a big fish in a small pond, than a small fish in a big pond any day.

Limiting the power of our national government to manipulate and control us on domestic/social issues would also remove a major impetus for its excessive spending and will thus give us all one more reason to support this cause.

Is this the America we have all loved and supported, and for which some have even fought and died?Obama Supports Wealth Redistribution

Is this where Barack AKA Captain Amerika and his Congress of the Democratic Suporter Majority will be taking us?

Are my fellow Americans so far gone that they are willing to trade their freedom from government for a free lunch from government?

Are we through then with notions of personal responsibility, and self-reliance? Are we trading them for self-gratification at all costs as long as someone else is picking up the immediate tab? Do they not see how such a collective approach will eventually lead to a loss of individual freedom and choice greater than a loss due to economic disparatiy?

Are they so short-sighted and ignorant of history that they can not foresee where this path will take us?

Will there even be an America worth fighting for after 8 years of their social engineering, or will all their new entitlements and programs be too entrenched to ever be pushed out of the way?

Senator Obama criticizes John McCain’s economic plan as a phony plan that only helps the rich while neglecting the needs of the middle and lower classes. He criticizes it and mocks it, and calls it a trickle-down scheme. But the only thing phony here is (Senator Obama) his reasoning.

Senator Obama believes the best way to help people is to simply give them the stuff, but in order to afford all his promises and freebees, he’ll have to massively increase the burdens on those who provide most of the jobs in this country in a way that will suffocate business and kill jobs.

His plan is patently flawed.

His plan discourages job creation, real wage growth, and only encourages stagnation, inflation, and unemployment, as has been the case with all such socialist experiments.

He proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, and he unabashedly plans to raise taxes on what he calls the wealthy. Oh, but don’t worry, this is only affect the filthy rich, vile businesses and evil corporations of America. Someone once said, “My Daddy never worked for a poor man.” Honestly, I don’t know anybody who does. Translation: Obama won’t tax you, but your employer won’t be so lucky. Tell me how this is not going to affect you?

Obama’s plan, like he himself, is short-sighted, naive, and ridiculous. You can’t cut taxes for 95% Americans when only two thirds of Americans actually pay taxes, and you surely can’t help 95% of people by raising taxes on their employers. He’s either country’s biggest conman, or he’s the one who doesn’t GET IT. Those taxes will be passed down to the people in the form of cut backs, layoffs, and higher prices. He wants to help the people, but his plan will only (screw) hurt them.

Personally, I’d rather have good things trickle down on me, rather than the crap that will spew down from his plan. Clearly it isn’t only Obama, who is full of (sh)it, (but it is his plan as well).

Post Script: We must remind people that the damage Obama admits he will pursue pales in comparison to the what he will actually achieve if the Democrats obtain what is currently being forcasted to be a supermajority in Congress. Most of the Democrats in Congress spare no bones when talking about their spending and regulatory wishlist. We will see our first 4 trillion dollar budgets. To pay for it taxes will have to be raised even higher than Obama has suggested, and these increases won’t be limited to the rich as he has promised. Clinton promised the same thing and that promise was chucked too when he came to power.

Thank you Joe the plummer for saying it, you were the one, you did it, you finally got the message out. Many of us here have been beating this drum for a while now with no success, but you did it. For myself, I was starting to wonder if McCain had some sort of mental disability when it came to arguing for simple conservative economic principles, but thanks to you his disability is gone. Thank you!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the central issue in this campaign is not just the economy, but it is more precisely Socialism. It’s not Ayers. It’s not community activism. It’s not even Wright. It’s Socialism, Stupid!

In the remaining weeks, the Republicans must make the people aware of what we stand to lose if Obama wins. Obama can say he doesn’t support radical change, but even if we can trust a man who has no real record to back up his words one way or another, he won’t have the final word on what happens if he wins. Democrats are already set to gain in the Congress, but if Obama wins as well, then socialism won’t just be a Democrat’s long held wet dream, it will be a reality.

Obama admitted as much the other day here.

Read More →

It appears that the rumors of Obama’s true socialist intentions were not exaggerated. SEE LINK FOR DEATILS Don’t worry folks, Joe Biden assure us that spreading the wealth around is completely patriotic.

I was watching the Simpsons earlier today, and caught the episode where Homer runs for the Sanitation Commissioner. (Trash of Titans – season 9) Anyway, I couldn’t get over the striking similarities between Homer and Obama’s campaign strategy. Homer’s slogan was “Can’t Someone Else Do It”

I recommend every Obama voter, and anyone else for that matter take a look if they’re wondering what an Obama administration will look like in the unfortunate event that he pulls one over on the American people.

Mrs. Palin, what experiences do you have that qualify you in the area of foreign affairs?

Why is this question so hard for everyone? Does everyone including Sarah Palin and the GOP have some sort of mental problem or block when it comes to coming up with a common sense answer to this simple question?

What the H#ll is wrong with everyone?

Sarah Palin has a great answer if only she’d think about what foreign affairs actually involves. All she has to say is the following:

As both a mayor and a governor I have handled contentious situations, arbitrated disputes, and negotiated between competing interests, and in these interactions I believe I consistently conducted myself with confidence in a principled yet respectful manner.

I would have to say that working with people in difficult situations is one of my strongest points.

I also have a solid command of our commitments abroad, I am very aware of the threats we face there, and I have a firm understanding of the history that underlies each.

True there are many who have met, shaken hands with, and kissed more foreign leaders, and even visited more foreign countries than I, but this, in the absence of real policy accomplishment or conflict resolution, hardly makes them qualified to manage and conduct foreign affairs.

Barak Obama and the Democrats attack success as if the only thing they have to fear is success.

How dare you have too many houses or make too much profit?! The reason they get so outraged is because they have rather a juvenile concept of wealth: they honestly believe there is only a set amount of wealth in the world, so if you or I get more, they must get less, how childish.

What they don’t understand is that wealth is not static, it’s endlessly being created by people, and it is only limited by the extent of their imagination and labor. A rock is just a worthless rock, unless you convince someone differently. It could be an arrowhead, a bed-warmer, or an exciting paper weight, but only if someone has the imagination and labor to make (and market) it so.

Most people who have a better than a two-year-old’s understanding of economics know that the more people are rewarded for using their imagination and labor, then the more they will make the things we need and want.

Barak Obama on the other hand wants to penalize success, so that no matter how hard your family works and how little someone else does, there will always be a level playing field. He’d rather reward failure. As he says, “let’s build ladders for success for those trapped in holes of crime and access,” but alas he doesn’t GET IT. He doesn’t understand that rewarding failure only encourages more failure, and it encourages more people to do less, which will only results in less (of what we want and need) getting made.

Of course the government can never permit this(less getting made), but where is a superman when you need one? Where is the chosen one, our savior? In a world where success is hunted down and killed, and failure is so celebrated in a cult of victimhood, we’ll need someone to take command of our economy, someone to make sure the things we need and want get made, someone to allocate our resources more fairly, to tell us what to do, and how much to make? We Americans like to be told what to do. Don’t we? What is freedom worth, when you’ve got the OPPORTUNITY for a free lunch? Obama answers: Not much.

Still don’t GET IT? Well, imagine you are back in school, and you and your classmates are told that each of you have to write three research papers in order to pass and five if you want an A. Imagine that you are also told that if anyone does not have at least three papers, then they can take a paper from anyone who writes more than three as long as they leave him or her with at least three.

How many papers would you write? How successful would you be in that class?

Welcome to the Democratic Party’s socialist vision for the American economy.

This is why the Soviet Union lost the cold war and their economy collapsed, but is it really the change we need, or can afford?

Did you ever notice how Democrats like to vilify guns, religion, and corporations for political gain?

Since when have any of these things ever been responsible for harming anyone?

It’s like those people in Scranton, always say, “Religion doesn’t kill people. People kill people.”

I suggest Democrats get a clue and focus on the real problems, which are those aspects of human nature that leads us to harm ourselves and others, maybe then they might be able to come up with some ideas that actually work.

Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Is that it then, patriotism is all about dollars and cents and how much you pay, because if it is, then I think these people have done enough. They’re already paying for more than 75% of our government’s bloated budget. Is that not patriotic enough?

Biden might as well have told the mother depicted in “Saving Private Ryan” to suck it, Jimmy’s not coming home either.

If it’s all about dollars and cents, then what does this say about the 40% of Americans who don’t pay taxes? Joe, are they somehow unpatriotic? Gosh, I’ve been very partisan over the last month, but I wouldn’t go there. I mean Joe, for you to bad mouth your own base with such an unfair insinuation, that’s really ballsy, or cuckoo.

What I want to know is, if paying ZERO isn’t unpatriotic, then how are they (the 40%) proving their patriotism, or are we giving them a pass on that too?

If patriotism is all about dollars and cents, then I never heard a stronger argument for a flat tax.

I teach U.S. Government and History at a small public high school in west Michigan. Today was the first day of the school, and to my surprise I discovered that the schools new internet filters block access to Redstate, but not the Daily Kos.

I was told that they could not unblock redstate w/o exposig all computers to inappropriate material. I was also informed by my vice principal that the filters obtain a list of so-called I appropriate sites from the State, but I am not so sure how true that last bit is. I believe the filter is called “Baracuda.”

I hope to find out more later. Are there other teachers out there that are having problems accessing and using Redstate or other conservative sites in their classes?

Sarah Palin Campaign Spot

I’m aware she’s only in the middle of her first term, but Obama is in the middle of his first term as Senator so at least the Republicans have the sense to place expereince at the top of the ticket. I’m also not sure the accusation that someone in her administration put pressure on the State police to fire of her estranged brother-law is something for which she can be faulted. The Democrats will feel like they got the wind knocked out of them when they get the news.