A curious word? "Eve"? The meaning, at least for the purposes of this blog is "Before" Some familiar "Eve's" are New Years Eve, Christmas Eve. We are in the throughs of the holiday season. Today is Christmas Eve, and I will speak of that soon. But first lets talk about the political eve we are experiencing. On November 2 2010 there was an election to rock this nation. The political field was to be changed forever. No more of the same liberal Obama Agenda. This was a new day. And then??? in comes the lame duck session. Another curious phrase. I guess it is named because very little supposedly gets done during this time. Well not this session. In comes the Lame duck session with the republicans declaring a new day and the reign of Obama being dead, and what do you know. Over the next 4 weeks with republican support, the Bush tax cuts remain in place with a christmas bundle of other gifts attached. Don't ask Don't tell is ended. The stark treaty, which the republicans said was the end of our country as we know it, was passed with republican support. In this Lame Duck session, the President has accomplished more of his agenda than the rest of his two year reign and he could not have accomplished any of it without republican votes. Hmmmmm. Curious.
Now back to Christmas Eve. In a time when our children can sing "Here comes Santa Claus" at there school concert but not "Away in a Manger", our country and the world celebrates Christmas. I cannot speak for anyone else, but this blogger is a Christian and I will not say "Happy Holidays" It is Christmas and I will call it nothing else during this season. "Unto you shall be born a Savior, He shall be born in a manger, wrapped is swaddling clothing, and you shall call him Emanuel".
"....For me and my house, we shall serve the lord"
With that, I say: "Merry Christmas Family, Merry Christmas Friends, Merry Christmas Country, and Merry Christmas World."
Friday, December 24, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The Ruse
Remember this? "Lower Deficiet" "Smaller Government""Lower taxes". These are the montra of the TEA Party movement. It was these claims which also got you voted into office on November 2 if you were running. The election to change the way polititians do business. A message has been sent to Washington. This was the election which was to send shock waves to all those who wish to remain in Congress. This election and elections to come.
Well here we are in the Lame duck session, where little is suppose to get accomplished while we wait for the newly elected congressmen to be sworn in and keep there promises. We havent seen these new members yet, but the language of congress changed immediately. Democrats were out and the republicans have the power. Lets take a quick look at how that is going.
The Republicans have come out and said nothing will proceed until the Bush tax cut extention is a done deal. These are tax cuts for everyone from the poorest people to the richest of the rich. The democrats want to renew only the tax cuts for the middle class and the republicans will not proceed unless the richest of the rich also keep there tax cuts. If you ever had a sign as to which party is for the rich and which party is for the middle class, this is it.
Now, no one disputes that raising taxes while we are recovering from a economic melt down is a good idea. I for one would really be pinched in the pocket book as would most any one in the middle class if their taxes were to increase. But do you think that if a person inherates millions of dollars and has to pay taxes on the inheritance that they would have less to spend. Please, give me a break. That being said, small businesses do need taxbreaks to invest in order to keep the recovery going, and no one can argue that we need to help those who want to work, but there are not jobs for them to work, so unemployment extensions is a good thing. Also, after the democtats, of all people, had a tissy over the deal, there are now provisions to extend tax breaks for renueable energy sources. All in all, the bill is said to benefit everyone, and be the best possible way to keep the economy going.
So lets put it to the election test. Less spending? NO. Smaller government? NO. Less taxes? NO. Hmmmmm. Does'nt seem like it accomplishes what the TEA party wants, BUT... I believe it is the right thing to due under the current conditions. This is just another reinforcement of what I have always believed. Smaller Government is a Ruse. a Smoke screen. It sounds good, but smaller government and less taxes is nothing more than a ghost.
It is far more important to do the right thing by the people of the United States.
Well here we are in the Lame duck session, where little is suppose to get accomplished while we wait for the newly elected congressmen to be sworn in and keep there promises. We havent seen these new members yet, but the language of congress changed immediately. Democrats were out and the republicans have the power. Lets take a quick look at how that is going.
The Republicans have come out and said nothing will proceed until the Bush tax cut extention is a done deal. These are tax cuts for everyone from the poorest people to the richest of the rich. The democrats want to renew only the tax cuts for the middle class and the republicans will not proceed unless the richest of the rich also keep there tax cuts. If you ever had a sign as to which party is for the rich and which party is for the middle class, this is it.
Now, no one disputes that raising taxes while we are recovering from a economic melt down is a good idea. I for one would really be pinched in the pocket book as would most any one in the middle class if their taxes were to increase. But do you think that if a person inherates millions of dollars and has to pay taxes on the inheritance that they would have less to spend. Please, give me a break. That being said, small businesses do need taxbreaks to invest in order to keep the recovery going, and no one can argue that we need to help those who want to work, but there are not jobs for them to work, so unemployment extensions is a good thing. Also, after the democtats, of all people, had a tissy over the deal, there are now provisions to extend tax breaks for renueable energy sources. All in all, the bill is said to benefit everyone, and be the best possible way to keep the economy going.
So lets put it to the election test. Less spending? NO. Smaller government? NO. Less taxes? NO. Hmmmmm. Does'nt seem like it accomplishes what the TEA party wants, BUT... I believe it is the right thing to due under the current conditions. This is just another reinforcement of what I have always believed. Smaller Government is a Ruse. a Smoke screen. It sounds good, but smaller government and less taxes is nothing more than a ghost.
It is far more important to do the right thing by the people of the United States.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Hybrid Country
Whenever there is one party in power in our government you will inevitably hear someone from the other party say "we are headed for disater, If we don't get the current administration out of power their policies will destroy this country." These comments to me seem to be directlt contridictory to what our founding fathers set up for us as a government. If you really think about it, our government is set up to prevent that very scenario.
One of the most treasured constitutional right we have is our freedom of speach. Each individual person is entitled to their opinion. Now, if we need unity and agreement for this country to work, then it would seem we are doomed. You cannot have unity and differences in opinion at the same time, or can you?
I had a very interesting example of unity vs disunity presented to me today. Lets say for instance you have two people and you find that when those two people meet and talk, you find that they both have the same smartphone. Well, you would then be able to conclude that these people are united - correct?. They have the same phone, therefore they are united. But then, when you look a little further, you find that when you check the contacts and apps on each phone they are very different, in fact one person could not function with the others phone. There lives would be in turmoil until the could change the phone to contain the information they need to function. So then they must not be unified correct?
I say to you that unification is not dependent upon people acting and thinking the same way. Probobly one of the biggest issuers I have with the concervative view, is not their beliefs at all, but the need to call all other views lies. They claim all who disagree with them are unpatriotic, people with liberal opinions hate america. I say to you nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the policies of the current administration which are very liberal and impose a larger amount of taxes on the american people to pay for government programs, and the policies of the concervatives who wish for less taxes, smaller government and free markets are unified. Both partiers have a common ground in patriatisum. Yes, the apps and contacts are different, but both parties begin with the same smartphone, The United States of America. Both parties have the same phone, they just have different apps. Both parties are doing what they believe is in the countries best interest, they just have different opinions on how to achieve the american dream.
The problem is not in the idea that we have different opinions. The problem comes when one opinion feels the other opinion is wrong and must comply with what they believe in order to be a patriotic american.
Do you remember when Toyota created the Prius. For most of us, this was the first time wer had ever heard the term Hybrid, however, we have been living in a hybrid society (The only one of its kind) for more than two centries. At times, this country will need to run on a smaller, less intrusive form of direction, which conserves money and power and still keeps us moving forward, while at other times, we will need to move faster, or need more power to keep our country moving forward. A unique form of republic government, where the people periodically vote on which type of government we need based on the current conditions of our country. If we lose either one of these driving forces, we lose the ability to have the american people chose their government. We lose our fundamental right to speak, have an individual opinion, and the choice for the direction of our country.
A vote for one type of government over another is NEVER a moritorium to dispense with the type of government currently facing defeat at the poles. The current climate simply didcates a change. The climate will change again and we will need the other form of governmental patriatism. To think otherwise is to say we do not need opinions. We are fine with one trane of thought, all the time.
Nothing could be further from what the founding fathers setup for the United States of America.
One of the most treasured constitutional right we have is our freedom of speach. Each individual person is entitled to their opinion. Now, if we need unity and agreement for this country to work, then it would seem we are doomed. You cannot have unity and differences in opinion at the same time, or can you?
I had a very interesting example of unity vs disunity presented to me today. Lets say for instance you have two people and you find that when those two people meet and talk, you find that they both have the same smartphone. Well, you would then be able to conclude that these people are united - correct?. They have the same phone, therefore they are united. But then, when you look a little further, you find that when you check the contacts and apps on each phone they are very different, in fact one person could not function with the others phone. There lives would be in turmoil until the could change the phone to contain the information they need to function. So then they must not be unified correct?
I say to you that unification is not dependent upon people acting and thinking the same way. Probobly one of the biggest issuers I have with the concervative view, is not their beliefs at all, but the need to call all other views lies. They claim all who disagree with them are unpatriotic, people with liberal opinions hate america. I say to you nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the policies of the current administration which are very liberal and impose a larger amount of taxes on the american people to pay for government programs, and the policies of the concervatives who wish for less taxes, smaller government and free markets are unified. Both partiers have a common ground in patriatisum. Yes, the apps and contacts are different, but both parties begin with the same smartphone, The United States of America. Both parties have the same phone, they just have different apps. Both parties are doing what they believe is in the countries best interest, they just have different opinions on how to achieve the american dream.
The problem is not in the idea that we have different opinions. The problem comes when one opinion feels the other opinion is wrong and must comply with what they believe in order to be a patriotic american.
Do you remember when Toyota created the Prius. For most of us, this was the first time wer had ever heard the term Hybrid, however, we have been living in a hybrid society (The only one of its kind) for more than two centries. At times, this country will need to run on a smaller, less intrusive form of direction, which conserves money and power and still keeps us moving forward, while at other times, we will need to move faster, or need more power to keep our country moving forward. A unique form of republic government, where the people periodically vote on which type of government we need based on the current conditions of our country. If we lose either one of these driving forces, we lose the ability to have the american people chose their government. We lose our fundamental right to speak, have an individual opinion, and the choice for the direction of our country.
A vote for one type of government over another is NEVER a moritorium to dispense with the type of government currently facing defeat at the poles. The current climate simply didcates a change. The climate will change again and we will need the other form of governmental patriatism. To think otherwise is to say we do not need opinions. We are fine with one trane of thought, all the time.
Nothing could be further from what the founding fathers setup for the United States of America.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Enough in the economy of Love
As you are all aware by now, There was an election last tuesday and I hope you all voted. I have always said that voting is one of the most important privilages we have in this country we call the United States of America. However, if you listened to the retoric of the election, I mean really listen, you heard a lot about less Government. In fact, the candidates who won, were running on a message primarily involving less government, or as I heard one of those victors say this morning, turning responsibility back over to the states. This begs the question: Are we a group of states running as Federal government, or are we a Federal Government running a group of states. I believe that we began as a group of states, who formed a government to do things that the states could not do for themselves. Over the last 230+ years, we have become a federal government who unites the States into one nation. Of course from what we have seen in this election, the states are less than united in what they want.
Probably the biggest misnomer that has come out of this election is "Less Government" I have spoken of this before. "Less Government" at the Federal level means turning the responsiblities back over to the individual states and getting the federal Government out of the states business. But what about less government at the state level, and does any of this retoric mean less taxes. As I have discussed before, we have to pay for it somewhere. If not at the federal level than the state level. If not there it is left to the local communities. This brings us to the next question: Is this good or bad. That question I do not have an answer to. It depends upon what happens at the state and local levels.
This bring me to my experience today which drew me back to the blog to write where I have not written for a while. Today, I attended a church other than my own, and was blessed with a message, or more accurately a video durring the message which was simply called "Enough". The message title was "Enough in the economy of Love".
When we have a reversal of government, which I think we all can agree is what has happened this last week, in the direction of Right from left, or Conservative from Libral. Many questions arise. If government is less, than who will take care of education, or the less fortunate such as the disabled, or those who live in poverty. Those who are liberal believe that we have enough in this nation, and the best way to help those less fortunate is to have the federal Government establish programs and collect money through taxes to "Redistribute" the wealth to those less fortunate. That's right, I used the word redistribute. For those who believe in less government, the idea is more of a personal decision, and if you have and worked hard for your money, you deserve to decide if and to who you give your money to.
The video "Enough" explored this issue from the view of God. The video explained that when God started his church, he was very clear on how issue of those less fortunate were to be handled and by who. The speaker brought us all the way back to the Hebrews back in slavery by the Egyptians. God said to the Hebrews. In the darkness of night, take only what you need for a days needs and leave. Did you catch that - He said "take only that which you need for a days needs". (Paraphrasing) He did not say take all you can carry, or leave everything. "Take what you need for a days needs" From this, the early church needed to rely on God for what they needed, and also those around them. As the early church developed the same needs we have today emerged. Some had more and some had less. During this time the belief of the early church was that "If you had two coats you stole one from someone who needed it." It didnt matter if you made them both yourself, or if you purchased them both from a travelling merchant. "If you had two coats you stole one of them" What I took from this is we as Christians are commanded to take care of those less fortunate. If we consider ourselfs a part of Gods church, we are charged with taking care of those less fortunate. The video made itclear, things like socialisum and communisum, really do not exist, except in the minds of those who want to cast a bad light on Gods plan for those with more to take care of those who have less. "Redistribution"
"Enough in the economy of Love". There is always enough in an economy of love to take care of everyone. Now some of you may read this and say "How dare he judge me and tell me I have to give what I earned away to help the lazy deadbeat on wealfare. Well to that I say, I dont dare. It is not my place to go around saying, you have two coats so you stole one of them. Well, from what I learned today, that is a view focused on the things of this world. The view we Christians need to have is a view of Eternal life. We need not be thinking so much about what we need to survive hear on this world, but we need to be focusing on what we will have in Eternal life. What are we storing up for our eternal life in heaven. Jesus was challenged with a question while he was with us on this earth. In the view of the early church, if a man married a woman and died, the brother of the man who died was required by church law to marry the widow. If he also died, then the next brother needed to step in. Jesus was asked, "If several brothers have married one woman , when they all die and go to heaven, which brother will the woman be the wife to. Jesus in his all knowing wisdom, condemed the pharasies for having a worldly view. He charged that we need to have an eternal view, and in heaven, there will be no need for marriage. We will all be in a perfect everlasting relationship with God.
So back to the subject. What happens now that our Government has changed. From the message I heard from God today, it shouldnt make a difference.We each need to examine our view. Are we focusing on this world or are we focusing on eternal life. Am I judging you if you keep both of those coats. No. That is between you and God and he has made that also crystal clear. "Judge not lest you be Judged." What you decide to do with your money is ultimatley not between you and your wife or you and your children, or you and me but between you and our Lord.
For me, I am not rich, but I do make money in this world, so I will need to do much better in the "economy of Love." Does this mean all the worlds problems will go away. No. But at least my eternal life will not go away either.
Probably the biggest misnomer that has come out of this election is "Less Government" I have spoken of this before. "Less Government" at the Federal level means turning the responsiblities back over to the individual states and getting the federal Government out of the states business. But what about less government at the state level, and does any of this retoric mean less taxes. As I have discussed before, we have to pay for it somewhere. If not at the federal level than the state level. If not there it is left to the local communities. This brings us to the next question: Is this good or bad. That question I do not have an answer to. It depends upon what happens at the state and local levels.
This bring me to my experience today which drew me back to the blog to write where I have not written for a while. Today, I attended a church other than my own, and was blessed with a message, or more accurately a video durring the message which was simply called "Enough". The message title was "Enough in the economy of Love".
When we have a reversal of government, which I think we all can agree is what has happened this last week, in the direction of Right from left, or Conservative from Libral. Many questions arise. If government is less, than who will take care of education, or the less fortunate such as the disabled, or those who live in poverty. Those who are liberal believe that we have enough in this nation, and the best way to help those less fortunate is to have the federal Government establish programs and collect money through taxes to "Redistribute" the wealth to those less fortunate. That's right, I used the word redistribute. For those who believe in less government, the idea is more of a personal decision, and if you have and worked hard for your money, you deserve to decide if and to who you give your money to.
The video "Enough" explored this issue from the view of God. The video explained that when God started his church, he was very clear on how issue of those less fortunate were to be handled and by who. The speaker brought us all the way back to the Hebrews back in slavery by the Egyptians. God said to the Hebrews. In the darkness of night, take only what you need for a days needs and leave. Did you catch that - He said "take only that which you need for a days needs". (Paraphrasing) He did not say take all you can carry, or leave everything. "Take what you need for a days needs" From this, the early church needed to rely on God for what they needed, and also those around them. As the early church developed the same needs we have today emerged. Some had more and some had less. During this time the belief of the early church was that "If you had two coats you stole one from someone who needed it." It didnt matter if you made them both yourself, or if you purchased them both from a travelling merchant. "If you had two coats you stole one of them" What I took from this is we as Christians are commanded to take care of those less fortunate. If we consider ourselfs a part of Gods church, we are charged with taking care of those less fortunate. The video made itclear, things like socialisum and communisum, really do not exist, except in the minds of those who want to cast a bad light on Gods plan for those with more to take care of those who have less. "Redistribution"
"Enough in the economy of Love". There is always enough in an economy of love to take care of everyone. Now some of you may read this and say "How dare he judge me and tell me I have to give what I earned away to help the lazy deadbeat on wealfare. Well to that I say, I dont dare. It is not my place to go around saying, you have two coats so you stole one of them. Well, from what I learned today, that is a view focused on the things of this world. The view we Christians need to have is a view of Eternal life. We need not be thinking so much about what we need to survive hear on this world, but we need to be focusing on what we will have in Eternal life. What are we storing up for our eternal life in heaven. Jesus was challenged with a question while he was with us on this earth. In the view of the early church, if a man married a woman and died, the brother of the man who died was required by church law to marry the widow. If he also died, then the next brother needed to step in. Jesus was asked, "If several brothers have married one woman , when they all die and go to heaven, which brother will the woman be the wife to. Jesus in his all knowing wisdom, condemed the pharasies for having a worldly view. He charged that we need to have an eternal view, and in heaven, there will be no need for marriage. We will all be in a perfect everlasting relationship with God.
So back to the subject. What happens now that our Government has changed. From the message I heard from God today, it shouldnt make a difference.We each need to examine our view. Are we focusing on this world or are we focusing on eternal life. Am I judging you if you keep both of those coats. No. That is between you and God and he has made that also crystal clear. "Judge not lest you be Judged." What you decide to do with your money is ultimatley not between you and your wife or you and your children, or you and me but between you and our Lord.
For me, I am not rich, but I do make money in this world, so I will need to do much better in the "economy of Love." Does this mean all the worlds problems will go away. No. But at least my eternal life will not go away either.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Who the Hell do you think you are!!!?
Who the Hell do you think you are? Using those two words in the same sentence!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!!? Giving our nations enemy something it did not achieve!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Playing commander and chief!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Disgracing and insulting every Man and Woman who EVER joined the armed forces to defend this country to their death if nessesary!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Using those two words together to defend an indefensable position!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? calling a muslim mosque a "VICTORY MOSQUE"
Ill tell you who you are.
You are a traitor to your country, handing the extremist muslims (Not all muslims)a victory over the USA when they have won nothing.
You are a concervative elitest who has abandoned his countries constitution and showing your hypocrisy in the process.
You are a coward in the face of defeat.
The issue of a mousqe in Lower manhattan is an issue that has two very distinct sides to the arqument. Side one: 3000+ people of many different races, and religions died in a horrific terrorist act carried out by 20 muslim extremists who knocked this country down, and gave this country a bloody nose; but that is where it ends. This country has risen from the dust of the TwinTowers to defend our country where our enemies hide. Oue enemies have not been victorious, therefore logic dictates that there cannot be a "Victory mosque" yet you call the mosque of lower manhatten just that. THat makes you a traitor to your country.
The families of those who died will have there memorial at Ground Zero. This is what this country will do to remember those who lost there lives that day.
Side Two: The constitution of the United States protects religious freedom. This is not arguable. This means that the Muslims have every right to build there mosque at the site they chose two blocks from ground zero because if it were any other church, we would never have been an issue. This means that the muslims are being singled out for their religion. If you do that you have abandoned the very Constitutional rights of religious freedom this country was founded on.
You would have us believe that this is not a religious issue because the muslims can build there mosque any where they want, just not at ground zero, but that is the first lie. You continue to say the mosgue will be at ground zero, yet if you look at a map the mousqe will be built two blocks away, around the corner and in the middle of that block. This lie is a typical lie, specifically catored to do what is typical of you the conservative right when you have a position which is indefensable. You play on our emotions, and try to make the argument about something else you believe you can win. A cowards game.
The second lie, You, the anti constititionists have come up with to try to trick us into looking away from the constitutionality of the issue, is the process of the Orthodox Church destroyed when the Twin Towers colapsed. You are trying to make us believe that the orthodox church has been prevented from rebuilding by the Port Authority while they fast track a mosque. You are trying to make us believe that the Port Authority is the one who is not supporting the constitution, therefore in the interest of fairness the mosque must not be built. Another lie. This is how I have heard the events have taken place. The Orthodox church which was destroyed in the attack, has been offered a plot of land much better than the one they currently were on, and also 60 million dollars to rebuild on said property. In addition if they do not want to move, they can build on the original site they were on at any time, they still own the property. However when the orthodox church approched the Port Authority about rebuilding on a larger sight the port authority said yes and also threw in $60 million dollars to help them rebuild. The church insisted on $80 million and also wanted decision making authority on properties around them. The Port Authority refused and the church has walked away from the table. They can still build on there original sight, but have thus far chosen not to. The original deal is also still on the table also, So this leaves the whole idea of the orthodox church a non issue.
Two sides both of equal relevance, but one is indefensable. Now you would have us believe that according to your poles, 70% of the people are against this mosque, but you do not tell us that in this same pole, as many people also said they believed the constitutional freedom of religion must be upheld. News flash, a lie of omission is still a lie.
Discussion on the issue is good, it can make our country stronger, and we all also have the constitutional right to our freedom of speech. Some just exercise this right with cowardess and shame instead of honesty and truth.
Who the Hell do you think you Are!!?
Who the Hell do you think you are!!!? Giving our nations enemy something it did not achieve!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Playing commander and chief!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Disgracing and insulting every Man and Woman who EVER joined the armed forces to defend this country to their death if nessesary!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? Using those two words together to defend an indefensable position!
Who the Hell do you think you are!!? calling a muslim mosque a "VICTORY MOSQUE"
Ill tell you who you are.
You are a traitor to your country, handing the extremist muslims (Not all muslims)a victory over the USA when they have won nothing.
You are a concervative elitest who has abandoned his countries constitution and showing your hypocrisy in the process.
You are a coward in the face of defeat.
The issue of a mousqe in Lower manhattan is an issue that has two very distinct sides to the arqument. Side one: 3000+ people of many different races, and religions died in a horrific terrorist act carried out by 20 muslim extremists who knocked this country down, and gave this country a bloody nose; but that is where it ends. This country has risen from the dust of the TwinTowers to defend our country where our enemies hide. Oue enemies have not been victorious, therefore logic dictates that there cannot be a "Victory mosque" yet you call the mosque of lower manhatten just that. THat makes you a traitor to your country.
The families of those who died will have there memorial at Ground Zero. This is what this country will do to remember those who lost there lives that day.
Side Two: The constitution of the United States protects religious freedom. This is not arguable. This means that the Muslims have every right to build there mosque at the site they chose two blocks from ground zero because if it were any other church, we would never have been an issue. This means that the muslims are being singled out for their religion. If you do that you have abandoned the very Constitutional rights of religious freedom this country was founded on.
You would have us believe that this is not a religious issue because the muslims can build there mosque any where they want, just not at ground zero, but that is the first lie. You continue to say the mosgue will be at ground zero, yet if you look at a map the mousqe will be built two blocks away, around the corner and in the middle of that block. This lie is a typical lie, specifically catored to do what is typical of you the conservative right when you have a position which is indefensable. You play on our emotions, and try to make the argument about something else you believe you can win. A cowards game.
The second lie, You, the anti constititionists have come up with to try to trick us into looking away from the constitutionality of the issue, is the process of the Orthodox Church destroyed when the Twin Towers colapsed. You are trying to make us believe that the orthodox church has been prevented from rebuilding by the Port Authority while they fast track a mosque. You are trying to make us believe that the Port Authority is the one who is not supporting the constitution, therefore in the interest of fairness the mosque must not be built. Another lie. This is how I have heard the events have taken place. The Orthodox church which was destroyed in the attack, has been offered a plot of land much better than the one they currently were on, and also 60 million dollars to rebuild on said property. In addition if they do not want to move, they can build on the original site they were on at any time, they still own the property. However when the orthodox church approched the Port Authority about rebuilding on a larger sight the port authority said yes and also threw in $60 million dollars to help them rebuild. The church insisted on $80 million and also wanted decision making authority on properties around them. The Port Authority refused and the church has walked away from the table. They can still build on there original sight, but have thus far chosen not to. The original deal is also still on the table also, So this leaves the whole idea of the orthodox church a non issue.
Two sides both of equal relevance, but one is indefensable. Now you would have us believe that according to your poles, 70% of the people are against this mosque, but you do not tell us that in this same pole, as many people also said they believed the constitutional freedom of religion must be upheld. News flash, a lie of omission is still a lie.
Discussion on the issue is good, it can make our country stronger, and we all also have the constitutional right to our freedom of speech. Some just exercise this right with cowardess and shame instead of honesty and truth.
Who the Hell do you think you Are!!?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Ipad or Kinndle correction
You see, Communisum and dictatorship and socialisum are NOT mutually exclusive.
Should read: You see, Communisum and dictatorship and socialisum are NOT mutually inclusive.
The blog has been corrected, but email recipients would not get a correction unless a post a Blog correction of this manner.
Should read: You see, Communisum and dictatorship and socialisum are NOT mutually inclusive.
The blog has been corrected, but email recipients would not get a correction unless a post a Blog correction of this manner.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
IPAD or Kindle
Here is the question of the day. Ipad or Kinndle. As you may know, these are a couple of the most popular electronic book readers on the market today, but before you answer, remember, this is a political forum. Read on before you choose.
Lets talk about political labels. There are alot of political labels out there and it can get confusing, but it is really not all that complicated. Most of us are familiar with the traditional Democrat and Republican labels. While these are the most common they are actually part of a larger group label. Then there are the Conservatives and Liberals. Some would say these are the larger political groups that Democrat and Republican fall under, but they are not. Other labels are Blue or Red, the symbols Donkey and Elephant, and also libritarian and Independant. A new comer to the field is the Tea Party and also the Green party from a few years ago.
In reality, these labels are labels which fall under the larger group of Right or Left politics. Known in short as, you guessed it, the Right and the Left. With the possible exception if Independent, all of the titles above fall under the Right or the Left. Independents say the are independent of these Right and Left groups, but they do tend to have tendencies to one side or the other.
If I am asked where I fall I answer with "I am a part of the American group and I votes the "issues" not the "Party". This is code for Independant.
The Right wing party consists of the Republicans, the Conservatives, The Tea party, the Red color and the Elephant as a mascot. Libritarians also fall under this group.
The Left wing party consists of the Democrats, the Liberals, the Blue color, and the mascot Donkey. The Green party is also a part of the Left.
SIDE BAR: Who picked the Donkey and Elephant as the mascots. This has to be a bad joke centuries ago, that went from bad to worse. This person also had to really dislike politics. Cant we do something to change these mascots. Lets get some new mascot suggestions together and vote in a future blog.
Now that we have the two main groups, Right and Left, we should discuss where each of the labels falls within the right and left.
If you are called a part of the Conservative Right wing, or Liberal Left wing, you are as far from the center (Independent) as you can be. You may also be called fringe or radical, but it really means you are completely for the two basic concepts of each party. The Right believes in less Federal government and primarily States decide for themselves. Of course, this belief also tricles down to States leaving it to the counties, the counties leaving it to the cities, and the cities collecting all taxes to run all operations including schools and all programs for helping those less fortunate. Concervative right wingers at the city level and also other higher levels, Including the Tea Party believe government should not be running schools. They believe in privatization of all community needs. This means, the churches and private donations help the needy and schools are 100% privately owned. Think about your current tax bill. $2000 to $4000 if you are an average middle class person. Private schools in my area are $10000 or more each year, and thats just school. You have to pay for it somewhere and thats just schools. What about roads. Do you want to pay a toll to use the roads from the moment you leave your drivewayto the moment you return home. Some things have to be paid for no matter what. Does the local level really look like the right place to pay for these.
If you are called part of the Liberal Left wing, you believe the Federal Government should collect taxes from all individual tax payers, and the country as a whole should fund public schools and social programs such as Medicare, Medicade, the newly passed medical insurance for all individuals, unemployment benefits, and also pay monies to the states for things like Highways or other programs they decide the country as a whole should be doing for the greater good of the country. There is another name for this I have not yet discussed. It is socialisum. Socializum also means the government supplies what the country needs and funds it through taxes. Where socialisum fails is that especially in the United States people have a right to vote there leaders in and out. many people would like all the benefits of socialisum, but balk at the cost through taxes. (and toll booths incidentally) As a result many well intended social programs fall short of there expectations, because political oponants cannot win on a platform of collecting enough taxes to do it right, which fuels the fire for the conservatives.
Conservatives claim the government cannot do things right but not because they are the government. They want you to believe that a socialist government equals Communisum (Old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, or Nazi Germany). This is complete nonsense. Anyone who uses labels like communisum or Nazi, or calls political people who believe in socialisum as "Hitler" are playing an emotional label card to try to shock you into believing in what they believe. They have run out of honest ways to convince you there way is better, or there way cannot convince you on its merits, and it usually comes from the Consevative Right or Tea Party members. They want to shock you into thinking this great country of ours will be come a Dictator run country just because of socialisum, which is an insult to the great american way of doing things. One Conservative political person in Wisconsin called The USA a 234 year experiment, and this description explains why The US could NEVER fall into the type of dictorial government some other countries have fallen prey to, because as AMERICANS we are a special breed of FREE Spirits who believe that each persons vote counts and each person contributes to this countries destination. I believe in the American Spirit and I believe that the american voters will always exercise there vote to keep this country the free independent country it is even if we are functioning in a socialist manner. You see, Communisum and dictatorship and socialisum are NOT mutually inclusive. The Right knows this, but they cant tell you this. Because they need to shock you and scare you into believing a Lie, instead of convincing you on the merits of their way of thinking. Shock Jockeying is the easier lazier way of converting people.
Quite frankly, I do not see anything wrong with either view as a whole. It is good for government not to become so big that it cannot function and it is good for the government to develop programs for the good of the country as a whole. Most people fall in this group and they differ in other areas like gun rights and abortion, and it is these arterial beliefs that decide a persons vote. Some are so strong on abortion that they could never vote Democrate because the "party" view is that abortion is a womans choice. I agree that a woman has the right to choose, I just think the choice is more appropriatly placed before a life is concieved and any choice to terminate a pregnancy is murder. As far as gun rights, I also believe that people should have the right to bear arms, and our constitution does currently give us that right. However I do not believe we all need to own M16's or other automatic firearms. I believe anyone who has not been convicted of a violent felony should be able to purchase register and keep fire arms. In addition, I thing those arms should be registered and people should undergo periodic training in order to have a gun. For all of the NRA members out there that just cried fowl to my views, if you really think about it most gun owners already belong to local gun clubs where they go to practice shooting already. Your local gun club could run the programs to validate training to its existing members, and all of the additional people who would need a place to go get training. The local gun club could make alot of money on new memberships and running these training programs and issuing permits for the local government.
Now, back the the book readers. The Ipad is a book reader with lots of other benefits at a higher price, much like the Left. The Kinndle is a bare bones reader and not much more at a lower price.
So which is it? Ipad or Kinndle?
Lets talk about political labels. There are alot of political labels out there and it can get confusing, but it is really not all that complicated. Most of us are familiar with the traditional Democrat and Republican labels. While these are the most common they are actually part of a larger group label. Then there are the Conservatives and Liberals. Some would say these are the larger political groups that Democrat and Republican fall under, but they are not. Other labels are Blue or Red, the symbols Donkey and Elephant, and also libritarian and Independant. A new comer to the field is the Tea Party and also the Green party from a few years ago.
In reality, these labels are labels which fall under the larger group of Right or Left politics. Known in short as, you guessed it, the Right and the Left. With the possible exception if Independent, all of the titles above fall under the Right or the Left. Independents say the are independent of these Right and Left groups, but they do tend to have tendencies to one side or the other.
If I am asked where I fall I answer with "I am a part of the American group and I votes the "issues" not the "Party". This is code for Independant.
The Right wing party consists of the Republicans, the Conservatives, The Tea party, the Red color and the Elephant as a mascot. Libritarians also fall under this group.
The Left wing party consists of the Democrats, the Liberals, the Blue color, and the mascot Donkey. The Green party is also a part of the Left.
SIDE BAR: Who picked the Donkey and Elephant as the mascots. This has to be a bad joke centuries ago, that went from bad to worse. This person also had to really dislike politics. Cant we do something to change these mascots. Lets get some new mascot suggestions together and vote in a future blog.
Now that we have the two main groups, Right and Left, we should discuss where each of the labels falls within the right and left.
If you are called a part of the Conservative Right wing, or Liberal Left wing, you are as far from the center (Independent) as you can be. You may also be called fringe or radical, but it really means you are completely for the two basic concepts of each party. The Right believes in less Federal government and primarily States decide for themselves. Of course, this belief also tricles down to States leaving it to the counties, the counties leaving it to the cities, and the cities collecting all taxes to run all operations including schools and all programs for helping those less fortunate. Concervative right wingers at the city level and also other higher levels, Including the Tea Party believe government should not be running schools. They believe in privatization of all community needs. This means, the churches and private donations help the needy and schools are 100% privately owned. Think about your current tax bill. $2000 to $4000 if you are an average middle class person. Private schools in my area are $10000 or more each year, and thats just school. You have to pay for it somewhere and thats just schools. What about roads. Do you want to pay a toll to use the roads from the moment you leave your drivewayto the moment you return home. Some things have to be paid for no matter what. Does the local level really look like the right place to pay for these.
If you are called part of the Liberal Left wing, you believe the Federal Government should collect taxes from all individual tax payers, and the country as a whole should fund public schools and social programs such as Medicare, Medicade, the newly passed medical insurance for all individuals, unemployment benefits, and also pay monies to the states for things like Highways or other programs they decide the country as a whole should be doing for the greater good of the country. There is another name for this I have not yet discussed. It is socialisum. Socializum also means the government supplies what the country needs and funds it through taxes. Where socialisum fails is that especially in the United States people have a right to vote there leaders in and out. many people would like all the benefits of socialisum, but balk at the cost through taxes. (and toll booths incidentally) As a result many well intended social programs fall short of there expectations, because political oponants cannot win on a platform of collecting enough taxes to do it right, which fuels the fire for the conservatives.
Conservatives claim the government cannot do things right but not because they are the government. They want you to believe that a socialist government equals Communisum (Old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, or Nazi Germany). This is complete nonsense. Anyone who uses labels like communisum or Nazi, or calls political people who believe in socialisum as "Hitler" are playing an emotional label card to try to shock you into believing in what they believe. They have run out of honest ways to convince you there way is better, or there way cannot convince you on its merits, and it usually comes from the Consevative Right or Tea Party members. They want to shock you into thinking this great country of ours will be come a Dictator run country just because of socialisum, which is an insult to the great american way of doing things. One Conservative political person in Wisconsin called The USA a 234 year experiment, and this description explains why The US could NEVER fall into the type of dictorial government some other countries have fallen prey to, because as AMERICANS we are a special breed of FREE Spirits who believe that each persons vote counts and each person contributes to this countries destination. I believe in the American Spirit and I believe that the american voters will always exercise there vote to keep this country the free independent country it is even if we are functioning in a socialist manner. You see, Communisum and dictatorship and socialisum are NOT mutually inclusive. The Right knows this, but they cant tell you this. Because they need to shock you and scare you into believing a Lie, instead of convincing you on the merits of their way of thinking. Shock Jockeying is the easier lazier way of converting people.
Quite frankly, I do not see anything wrong with either view as a whole. It is good for government not to become so big that it cannot function and it is good for the government to develop programs for the good of the country as a whole. Most people fall in this group and they differ in other areas like gun rights and abortion, and it is these arterial beliefs that decide a persons vote. Some are so strong on abortion that they could never vote Democrate because the "party" view is that abortion is a womans choice. I agree that a woman has the right to choose, I just think the choice is more appropriatly placed before a life is concieved and any choice to terminate a pregnancy is murder. As far as gun rights, I also believe that people should have the right to bear arms, and our constitution does currently give us that right. However I do not believe we all need to own M16's or other automatic firearms. I believe anyone who has not been convicted of a violent felony should be able to purchase register and keep fire arms. In addition, I thing those arms should be registered and people should undergo periodic training in order to have a gun. For all of the NRA members out there that just cried fowl to my views, if you really think about it most gun owners already belong to local gun clubs where they go to practice shooting already. Your local gun club could run the programs to validate training to its existing members, and all of the additional people who would need a place to go get training. The local gun club could make alot of money on new memberships and running these training programs and issuing permits for the local government.
Now, back the the book readers. The Ipad is a book reader with lots of other benefits at a higher price, much like the Left. The Kinndle is a bare bones reader and not much more at a lower price.
So which is it? Ipad or Kinndle?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill
I have waited for quite some time to weigh in on the gulf oil spill in order to try to avoid the emotions of the event and give my logical opinion. Here is what we know to be fact at this time: The oil from the well is going to impact the area for years to come.
Here is the question of the day. Is this President Obama's Katrina? Lets compare the two events, One being the Katrina hurricane and two, being the oil disaster.
With Katrina, the hurricane wipped through a very large area of the gulf area of the United States and left thousands of miles of disaster, and then it was gone. All that was left was disaster relief and clean up. People waited for weeks to be rescued from the Super Dome. FEMA took a week just to make an appearance and was not prepared to handle the very thing they are charged with doing, providing disaster relief.
With the Oil spill, the Coast Guard (A government agency) was on scene withing hours fighting the fire and has not left the scene since. The oil spill has never gone away, it remains in the gulf, leaking oil. To compare the two, hurricane katrina would have needed to remain in the region spinning its disaster for weeks while rescue operations were being attempted.
The coast Guard deals primarily with rescues, and are ill equipped to stop an oil well leak. By the way, most people, including you, I , and the President of the Unites States , do not have the know how to stop an oil gusser a mile deep on the ocean floor. So who is best equipped to handle this. Logically, it would, and should be the oil companies. They do this type of stuff for a living. It would be irresponsible for President Obama to rush in take control and then have to say, "Now what do we do". On the other hand President Bush should have rushed in, taken control (Via the appropriate government agency of course) and then "Now What do we do?" is an easily answered question.
There is no comparison between the complexities of the two disasters, so there cannot be an apples to apples comparison to the responses. Just for the record, I do not believe either president is responsible for rushing into a disaster and solving the problem. These are the actions which are and should be reserved for the appropriate agencies or businesses who are charged with these duties. FEMA (Its Top Director) is responsible for the poor reaction to katrina and BP is responsible for the oil spill and cleanup.
As for the cleanup, and all the fuss about spoiled beaches. We have equipment to clean them up. We have ways to address the spilled oil, and clean the beaches, it will just take some time. Yes, we will see horrific images of dying wildlife, which will tug at our heart strings and cause us to give money to fradulent charities, but we will get past that sooner than you think.We all just need to be patient and let this all play out.
As for the current plan. BP is capping the pipe temporarily and collecting oil, while two other drill platforms drill into the well to close off the well. Yeah right. I have not heard anyone address this issue yet, so I will be the first to make this prediction. BP has a well on there hands which is such a rich find, that they cannot contain the flow of oil. Do you think they are going to cap the well and float away. I do not think so. Have you asked yourself, "Why do they need two drills to drill and intercept the well pipe? The answer is simple, In my opinion, BP has already done the math and believes the oil field has to much pressure for one oil rig, (which is why it exploded) but two rigs will be able to manage the collection of oil. BP intends to meet up with the well pipe, and open both wells as new platforms and continue to manage the well. I will say it again - BP has no intention of capping this well, they intend to use the two new platforms to continue collecting oil, for as long as this well will allow.
While we all are looking at the disaters on the shores, I believe BP is building two new rigs to float out and use to manage the well for years to come. There will be no well capping.
Just my opinion. Time will tell.
Here is the question of the day. Is this President Obama's Katrina? Lets compare the two events, One being the Katrina hurricane and two, being the oil disaster.
With Katrina, the hurricane wipped through a very large area of the gulf area of the United States and left thousands of miles of disaster, and then it was gone. All that was left was disaster relief and clean up. People waited for weeks to be rescued from the Super Dome. FEMA took a week just to make an appearance and was not prepared to handle the very thing they are charged with doing, providing disaster relief.
With the Oil spill, the Coast Guard (A government agency) was on scene withing hours fighting the fire and has not left the scene since. The oil spill has never gone away, it remains in the gulf, leaking oil. To compare the two, hurricane katrina would have needed to remain in the region spinning its disaster for weeks while rescue operations were being attempted.
The coast Guard deals primarily with rescues, and are ill equipped to stop an oil well leak. By the way, most people, including you, I , and the President of the Unites States , do not have the know how to stop an oil gusser a mile deep on the ocean floor. So who is best equipped to handle this. Logically, it would, and should be the oil companies. They do this type of stuff for a living. It would be irresponsible for President Obama to rush in take control and then have to say, "Now what do we do". On the other hand President Bush should have rushed in, taken control (Via the appropriate government agency of course) and then "Now What do we do?" is an easily answered question.
There is no comparison between the complexities of the two disasters, so there cannot be an apples to apples comparison to the responses. Just for the record, I do not believe either president is responsible for rushing into a disaster and solving the problem. These are the actions which are and should be reserved for the appropriate agencies or businesses who are charged with these duties. FEMA (Its Top Director) is responsible for the poor reaction to katrina and BP is responsible for the oil spill and cleanup.
As for the cleanup, and all the fuss about spoiled beaches. We have equipment to clean them up. We have ways to address the spilled oil, and clean the beaches, it will just take some time. Yes, we will see horrific images of dying wildlife, which will tug at our heart strings and cause us to give money to fradulent charities, but we will get past that sooner than you think.We all just need to be patient and let this all play out.
As for the current plan. BP is capping the pipe temporarily and collecting oil, while two other drill platforms drill into the well to close off the well. Yeah right. I have not heard anyone address this issue yet, so I will be the first to make this prediction. BP has a well on there hands which is such a rich find, that they cannot contain the flow of oil. Do you think they are going to cap the well and float away. I do not think so. Have you asked yourself, "Why do they need two drills to drill and intercept the well pipe? The answer is simple, In my opinion, BP has already done the math and believes the oil field has to much pressure for one oil rig, (which is why it exploded) but two rigs will be able to manage the collection of oil. BP intends to meet up with the well pipe, and open both wells as new platforms and continue to manage the well. I will say it again - BP has no intention of capping this well, they intend to use the two new platforms to continue collecting oil, for as long as this well will allow.
While we all are looking at the disaters on the shores, I believe BP is building two new rigs to float out and use to manage the well for years to come. There will be no well capping.
Just my opinion. Time will tell.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Gas prices
Each day that passes, I become more frustrated with the current gas pump prices. Why? Because over the last couple of weeks every gas price indicator, including available supplies, available refining capacity, demand, and oil prices have been extreemely favarable, not just leaning to ok, but extreemely good and pump prices have not budges more that a couple of pennies.
Currently we have more than enough gas supply to last the summer at current demand, and demand has not gone up as first believed. (Which initially caused prices to rise 20-30 cents a couple of months ago). If demand does suddenly rise, there is more that enough refining capacity available, for more gas to be refined. Then - here is the frustration - Oil prices have plummeted. They are down from $85.00 / barrel to $73.00 / barrel in one weeks time, and have dropped even further to $70.00 / barrel this last week. Pump prices in my area were $2.91 per gallon (unleaded), which to some of you in larger metro areas, might sound nice, but its not. With oil down 15+ % prices should be dropping. If oil went up $15.00/barrel pump prices would jump within 24 hours and to the tune of 20-30 cents per gallon or more.
Dont get me wrong here. I am not one of those big oil is bad people. Every business has a right to make a profit, but oil is something different than your average chocolate store business. I can pass on chocholate for the rest of my life, and miss it but I do not need it. Until alternatives are redily available we as a nation need to use gasoline to get around, and yes, we are dependent upon it, especially those of us who are somewhat rural, and do not have bus or subway options available for travel. For these reasons, the oil companies should not be allowed to gouge the consumer the way they do at times like this. Price gouging is easy to spot, except to government regulators. Big oil is currently picking the pockets of every man woman and child who has little option when it comes to driving and there are no police to call in this situation.
Just another quick point to touch on here. I realize that some will be saying, this is why we need to drill more oil, so we can be independent from other nations. If we rely only on american company drilled oil then OPEC cannot set the price we pay. WAKE UP.
Lets say that that happens. The US oil companies drill enough oil to satisfy our needs and we no longer need to buy foreign oil. If the foreign oil is selling on the open market for $85.00/barrel, do you think they will sell to the american market for less? Of course not, so Drill Baby Drill!! is not a pump price solution for the united states. An in order to be a truely independent nation we need to be completely free from foreign oil, but that blog is for a different day.
Currently we have more than enough gas supply to last the summer at current demand, and demand has not gone up as first believed. (Which initially caused prices to rise 20-30 cents a couple of months ago). If demand does suddenly rise, there is more that enough refining capacity available, for more gas to be refined. Then - here is the frustration - Oil prices have plummeted. They are down from $85.00 / barrel to $73.00 / barrel in one weeks time, and have dropped even further to $70.00 / barrel this last week. Pump prices in my area were $2.91 per gallon (unleaded), which to some of you in larger metro areas, might sound nice, but its not. With oil down 15+ % prices should be dropping. If oil went up $15.00/barrel pump prices would jump within 24 hours and to the tune of 20-30 cents per gallon or more.
Dont get me wrong here. I am not one of those big oil is bad people. Every business has a right to make a profit, but oil is something different than your average chocolate store business. I can pass on chocholate for the rest of my life, and miss it but I do not need it. Until alternatives are redily available we as a nation need to use gasoline to get around, and yes, we are dependent upon it, especially those of us who are somewhat rural, and do not have bus or subway options available for travel. For these reasons, the oil companies should not be allowed to gouge the consumer the way they do at times like this. Price gouging is easy to spot, except to government regulators. Big oil is currently picking the pockets of every man woman and child who has little option when it comes to driving and there are no police to call in this situation.
Just another quick point to touch on here. I realize that some will be saying, this is why we need to drill more oil, so we can be independent from other nations. If we rely only on american company drilled oil then OPEC cannot set the price we pay. WAKE UP.
Lets say that that happens. The US oil companies drill enough oil to satisfy our needs and we no longer need to buy foreign oil. If the foreign oil is selling on the open market for $85.00/barrel, do you think they will sell to the american market for less? Of course not, so Drill Baby Drill!! is not a pump price solution for the united states. An in order to be a truely independent nation we need to be completely free from foreign oil, but that blog is for a different day.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Imigration
Is the Arizona imigration law racist or is it boarder security?
I do not believe that anyone can reasonably argue that our boarders (North or South) do not pose a security risk for the United States if they are not secure. So for arguments sake, we must conclude that leaving the boarders unsecure is not an option. What does secure mean? In my opinion it means that we regulate and monitor the movement to and from the United States, of goods and people. Any failure of either of these things leaves the United States unsecure. Also for argument sake, it is not reasonable to believe that all people in the United States who arrived here without receiving proper approval will be returned to their respective contries. So, lets take a look at Arizonas law. Without going into specifics of the entire law, I believe the main contention for the law is that law enforcement will be able to ask for a persons papers showing they are in the US legally. As a result people are protesting claiming the law is racist. The question is does the law identify a specific race. The answer is no, but those against the law say that mexicans will be unfairly targeted in arizona, via ratial profiling. I ask you this: If the law were introduced exactly as it is written in Michigan to protect the Michigan/Canada boarder, would Michigan be racist against mexicans? How about canadians? The answer is no? Now if the law said in Arizona Law enforcement will be required to stop and check all mexicans for proper papers, YES ABSOLUTELY, this would be racist and ratially motovated because people are being targeted for their race. But if the exact same law were introduced and passed in michigan, the michigan Law enforcement would not automatically start pulling over mexicans to check for papers.
It makes sense that wherever the bill were introduced, the people who would most likely be traveling back and forth acrross the boarder would be the ones checked most frequently.
The point is made that this is how it was with blacks and women. Laws were introduced which required people to accomplish things such as intellegence tests, knowing that a specific race of people would not be able to meet the requirements, thereby they would not be prevented from doing things others could. This is not the case with immigration. Everyone who wants to immigrate to the US legally can and should be able to do so, with the possible (and reasonable) exception of those with contagious diseases and those with serious criminal records, or those with ties to organizations who have pledged to do harm to the US and its citizens. For these reasons I believe the law cannot be deemed racist in nature or intent.
There are those who think the boarders should be fully open, but we have determined that that would leave the US open to security threats, so that cannot be an option in todays world.
Tell me your thoughs. Lets dissuss in a manner free from insults and name calling. Just give me your opinion as you see it whether you agree or disagree. After all in the US we do have freedom of speech, and that means no matter what our opinion is, as long as it is not with the desire to do harm to others, we are free to speak our minds.
I do not believe that anyone can reasonably argue that our boarders (North or South) do not pose a security risk for the United States if they are not secure. So for arguments sake, we must conclude that leaving the boarders unsecure is not an option. What does secure mean? In my opinion it means that we regulate and monitor the movement to and from the United States, of goods and people. Any failure of either of these things leaves the United States unsecure. Also for argument sake, it is not reasonable to believe that all people in the United States who arrived here without receiving proper approval will be returned to their respective contries. So, lets take a look at Arizonas law. Without going into specifics of the entire law, I believe the main contention for the law is that law enforcement will be able to ask for a persons papers showing they are in the US legally. As a result people are protesting claiming the law is racist. The question is does the law identify a specific race. The answer is no, but those against the law say that mexicans will be unfairly targeted in arizona, via ratial profiling. I ask you this: If the law were introduced exactly as it is written in Michigan to protect the Michigan/Canada boarder, would Michigan be racist against mexicans? How about canadians? The answer is no? Now if the law said in Arizona Law enforcement will be required to stop and check all mexicans for proper papers, YES ABSOLUTELY, this would be racist and ratially motovated because people are being targeted for their race. But if the exact same law were introduced and passed in michigan, the michigan Law enforcement would not automatically start pulling over mexicans to check for papers.
It makes sense that wherever the bill were introduced, the people who would most likely be traveling back and forth acrross the boarder would be the ones checked most frequently.
The point is made that this is how it was with blacks and women. Laws were introduced which required people to accomplish things such as intellegence tests, knowing that a specific race of people would not be able to meet the requirements, thereby they would not be prevented from doing things others could. This is not the case with immigration. Everyone who wants to immigrate to the US legally can and should be able to do so, with the possible (and reasonable) exception of those with contagious diseases and those with serious criminal records, or those with ties to organizations who have pledged to do harm to the US and its citizens. For these reasons I believe the law cannot be deemed racist in nature or intent.
There are those who think the boarders should be fully open, but we have determined that that would leave the US open to security threats, so that cannot be an option in todays world.
Tell me your thoughs. Lets dissuss in a manner free from insults and name calling. Just give me your opinion as you see it whether you agree or disagree. After all in the US we do have freedom of speech, and that means no matter what our opinion is, as long as it is not with the desire to do harm to others, we are free to speak our minds.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Under construction
This blog is currently being created and will be up in a few days. My intent is to blog oneveryday average items that affect the middleclass person in the world and politics. My blog will address something of interest I encounter during my middleclass day and mymiddleclass reaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)