A School District That Considers the Recession as a God Send or An Example of Local Control Over Central Control?

Here is an example of a "Can do" attitude on an individual level when the norm is a "Can't do" attitude on a collective level which only results in whining and complaining about the lack of government funds.



I say no more. What say you?

Muslims Oppose Anti-Sharia Laws

Dave Agema, a state lawmaker, wants Michigan to join the trend of states banning "foreign laws," but Muslim activists say the effort is a thinly veiled attack on Islam.

Critics fear Sharia could supersede civil law and have an impact on divorce and child custody cases, and similar legislation has been introduced in 25 states.

"Agema … is a reflection of a segment of the GOP that is openly xenophobic and Islamophobic," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter

More Here

More arguments here by a Democrat and the NAACP

-------------------------
To me a law like this is no more anti-Islamic than the laws of divorce is anti-Catholic since they do not recognize divorce in their religion or the laws on bigamy is being anti-Mormon.

In fact laws such as these could be interpreted as a pro-life stance that every American should support. By pro-life I mean anti-honor killing as practiced by some Muslim believers.

One more thought; if being anti-sharia is a segment of the GOP being islamphobic as the Dir. of CAIR has explicitly declared then he must also implicitly be declaring that a segment of the Demoocrats are pro-sharia law.  I wonder how many Democrats will openly admit to that?

what say you?

From Moses to Roosevelt to Obama

Moses

‎5000 Years Ago, Moses Said To Israel, "Pick Up Your Shovels, Mount Your Asses And Camels, And I Will Lead You To The Promised Land."

When Welfare Was Introduced, Roosevelt Said, "Lay Down Your Shovels, Sit On Your Asses, And Light Up A Camel, This Is The Promised Land."

Today The Government Has Stolen Your Shovel, Taxed Your Asses, Raised The Price Of Camels And Mortgaged The Promised Land To China. Welcome to the United States of America.

a h/t to my niece, Lea

A Lesson in Irresponsible Economic Policies or "There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

Our Future?

I have only two questions. 1. How long will it be before your town or State follows suit? 2. When will the people wake up and demand that our representatives in government act in a responsible manner by treating their constituents as adults who are capable of ruling their own lives as the founding fathers intended?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pretty Much Sums up Liberal Economic Philosophy. Any Questions?

Then we might also add a demand to raise taxes in order to pay for the debt that was the result of putting this money into the economy. Yeah, that will work too. We stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time.  Makes perfect liberal sense, doesn't it?

h/t to Dcat over at "Razor Sharp Claws"

Here is a Good Reason to Celebrate the 4th. Right Wing, not Left Wing Politics are the Politics of the People

Click to d/l wallpaper

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend's July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.
"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard. [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]

More Here

Have a Happy Fourth everyone and
Listen to John Wayne and Red Skelton
in regards to their feeling of this nation

Need I say Anymore?

Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Did Lincoln Free the Slaves or Did Winning the War Just Lead Us to that Perception?

“Grandpa, I’ve been doing some research in regards to the Constitution and I’ve come up with some facts that kind of puzzles me. At the time of its passage there was no left or right when it came to the interpretation of the Constitution. Everyone interpreted it as being clearly written and everyone saw it from the view of strict construction.

This interpretation lasted up and past the War between the States.  Presidents Lincoln, a Republican, and President Johnson, a Democrat, as well as President Buchanan were united in this interpretation. They were also united in the fact that secession was illegal and that the southern states were still members of the United States, not States separated from the union thus allowed to form their own confederation. This would justify teaching that it was a civil war. Yet one thing bothers me.

There are many that say that Lincoln freed the slaves by executive order with the Emancipation Proclamation. If the southern States were not legally separated but still members of the United States then how could Lincoln, by executive order give freedom to the slaves? That would appear as an abuse of the executive branch of the federal government by the fact he blatantly violated the terms of the Constitution. And if so, a very impeachable act of President Lincoln.

The only possible ways that Lincoln could legally free the slaves would be, in my opinion, is under one of these circumstances.
1. the southern States were actually legally separated from the United States thus allowing Lincoln to treat them as a separate nation with whom the United States was at war with. If so then the Constitution would no longer apply to these States. By this understanding the war could no longer be classified as a civil war but as a war between two nations, both made up of a confederation of States. It would just be defined as a war between the States because by the strict constructionists view each of the States were sovereign States. The only problem with this is the fact that the federal government never recognized the Confederacy as an independent sovereign State.
2. One other way would be that it was the understanding up through that time that the President of the United States has dictatorial powers during times of war. This would declare that the President was no longer bound by the constitutional limits placed upon the federal government as a strict constructionist would interpret it. The problem with this is the fact that it goes against the whole concept of the meaning of a constitutional government.
3. The southern States were no longer recognized as being sovereign States once they had seceded thus were subject to the rule of the federal government in the same manner as any other territory owned by the United States. The problem with this is the fact that it goes against the whole concept of the meaning of being a sovereign state in the first place.

Grandpa, one more thing we must remember in regards to this act. The importance of it is dependent upon the fact that it was the north who won the war and not the south. If the south had won, that speech would have no meaning in regards to the freedom of the slaves. It probably would be looked upon as the rantings of a delusional man unfit to be President of these United States. And along this line of thought we'd have to say that John Wilkes Booth's place in history would be seen in an entirely different light. In fact, our whole perception of that time as we know it today is dependent upon the fact that the United States won the war. This includes some people's perception of the cause of the war.

This simple fact along with other things that I have learned by researching the issue has made me question the truthfulness of history as being taught in school. History, as taught, appears to be very emotionally biased towards the winner of the war and prejudiced against the loser. This, alone, scares me in regards to our educational system.

If it does nothing else, grandpa, it has instilled in me one fact that you have preached from day one, the importance of depending upon ourselves rather then depending upon others to provide for our needs. It is apparent to me now that this concept also applies to the education of the mind. For what others teach us will ultimately be in accordance to their own biases and prejudices.

My only question is, What gave the federal government the right to force the confederate States to remain in the union instead of acknowledging their right to secede from the union?

Am I making any kind of sense, grandpa, or are my words the words of a silly fool?”

Grandpa just grinned, reached out and ruffled my hair with that big calloused hand of his and replied, “I'll let you know after you tell me what else you have found out from that research of yours.”

Then he just put his arm around me and began leading me towards the house saying, “But, right now, let's you and me go in and partake of the fine vittles that your grandma has cooked up for us. I can smell how good it is going to taste all the way out here and it has made me hungry as a mama bear that has just woke up from a long winter's nap.”

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work (Part II)

We speak of that new millionaire who is still using food stamps but we can't blame him for it. He is using them in accordance to the laws in regards to food stamps. We also cannot blame the State of Michigan either for the State is only following the guidelines of the federal government out of whose treasury the money comes for food stamps.

You and I may consider what he is doing as being unethical and the man is without scruples for abusing the system outside of its intent and purpose. But if we acknowledge that laws can influence the way a man thinks and feels then we must ask ourselves one question. Is it just man who is at fault or is it the law itself that can be blamed for his feelings?

One more thought that people should consider. This man was using food stamps prior to winning the lottery. That means he must have had enough money to buy lottery tickets with. If the man was so needy and was getting welfare to provide for his needs then where did he get the extra money necessary to buy those tickets?  The only answer that I can come up with is that he used your tax dollars to buy the tickets.

I have to admit I still remember a time when people felt shame for taking a government handout of any kind. But then again there was a time when a poor person was not looked upon as being someone deserving of pity either nor did that person appreciate being shown pity. Those were the times when a man knew that if he was to make it in this world he had only himself to depend upon. Those were the times when self-respect was more important than having a dollar in your pocket.

We are a nation of laws or at least we promote ourselves as this kind of nation to the world. It is by laws that allow our government to serve the people or at least we promote that principle of government. Laws are enacted so as to benefit the people or at least we are taught that in our schools. There is one thing about laws that isn't mentioned though.

Laws can also be taken advantaged of for the intent and purpose of self-gain. And it doesn't matter what type of laws we speak of whether they be criminal laws or civil laws. In criminal law this is recognized by the axiom of “Tis better that one hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.”  Do we wish to use that same form of axiom in regards to those laws dealing with the financial welfare of individuals? Is it better to allow one hundred persons to take advantage of these programs for self-gain than to deny it to one person of need?

On top of people undeservedly taking advantage of these programs we must also consider one more factor. That factor being the actual fraudulent claims that by the very nature of the programs will result within a program like this. Is it better to allow one hundred fraudulent claims than to deny it of one person in need? Here is more of an example of fraud or people taking advantage of the genorosity of the tax payer. 200 ineligible dependents

As those who have been following me on this blog probably already know my answer is no. and in my opinion there is only two ways that the government can deal with the financial welfare of individuals that cannot be taken advantage of, legally or illegally. The government can expand the program so as to allow everyone to participate in that program without any bias or prejudice. The other way is for the government to eliminate the program all together. You have two guesses as to which one I’d prefer.

Now, there will be some who will call me hard-hearted because of this. They will tell you I have no compassion. If that be their feelings about me then so be it. But if I am to be accused of this it will be only at the expense of those towards whom I am soft-hearted. If I am to be accused of this then it will only be at the expense of those who I feel deserve greater respect then what is being shown to them.

Where do my thoughts lie? They lie in the idea of the 48% who display their ethics by working 1/3 of every day or more away from their families so that some may spend the whole day with their families, the taxpayer. My feelings lie in the knowledge that the government demands that the taxpayer has to place the needs of strangers above the needs of his own family. My feelings and thoughts lie in the fact that these men must provide the means to other so that they can fulfill their dreams before he is allowed to fulfill his own and those of his own family.  Is that what the American Dream is all about?

What say you? Are my thoughts and feelings misplaced?

The End Results of a Constitution Seen as a "Living Document" not as a "Contract"

Ok, folks, this is the kind of Supreme court rulings you can expect to get handed down when you interpret the Constitution in the manner of it being a “living document” instead of it being interpreted in the manner of a “contract”. It is just this type of flexibility that needs to be prevented. It was just this type of government abuse of power that is the reason for constitutional law.

It is just this type of rulings that justifies the accusation that government is abusing the power given to them by the people. So, all of you who thinks that our way of life as given to us by the founding fathers has failed to live up to its promises take a good clear look at the future you are promising the people. Take a good look and see a future that has already failed before you have implemented it completely.

Take a good look at what your government expects of you, the people. It expects that you submit unto its power without the right to protect the privacy of your home now. This is your change you promised. This what we have to hope for in the future. Justify it if you can.

The future you promised is nothing but taking us back to the past prior to the founding fathers when the government had the right to invade your home and do whatever it wanted. This is what you get when you no longer adhere to the principles of individual rights but promote the idea of class rights. Do rulings like this declare that the government is a servant of the people or is it declaring that government is the Master?

And if you look into my past articles you will see many warnings about what can result from the way you interpret life, government, and the constitution. And know this, if we the people submit to rulings such as this I will predict that it will only go downhill from here in regards to individual rights if they are not already been denied to the people.

As for their excuse of the idea that to submit unto the government's power in order to avoid violence is just that, it is just an excuse to grab even greater power. Violence would have been avoided if the agents of the government had acted in accordance to the law. All this ruling did was to deny an individual the right of self-defense. If a man no longer has the right to protect the security of his home then what does he have the right to protect?

Now, what am I speaking of? Of what am I ranting about? It is this.  Read and weep, my friends.  I can't think of anything more shameful than what I have read here.  Liberty has just been lost as it never existed for the people.  I hope you can enjoy your victory my liberal friends.
Court: No right to resist an illegal act of a government agent

a h/t to the Libertarian Patriot

Liberalism, a Look at It as being in the Mode of the Enlightenment of the Founding Fathers

I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.

The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.

This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.

In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.

And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it.  I know I did. What say you?

The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks

A New Look At the Success of Socialism

The Basic Theory behind Socialism

The Right of a job as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist faces layoffs

No exploitation of the worker as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist hires a man to work

All Property is the Property of the Community as promised by Socialism
Only a Capitalist owns private property









In closing I can only say that I prefer the promise of failure that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success that is promoted by the Socialistic system.

What say you?

UPDATE:
At the suggestion of one of my valued commenters I will change the wording of the preference that I made above to;

In closing I can only say that I prefer the guarantee of failure to some persons that is inherent in the Capitalistic system over the promises of success to all persons by the Socialistic system. The only thing that both systems possess in common are politicians who will lie to the people.

Education in This Nation and a Couple of Movies Addressing the Issue

Here is a Challenge, A Challenge That No Liberal Can Afford to Turn Down

Click on the Picture above

So, some politicians advocate taxing the rich more than they are already taxed. Well, the hilarious part of this is the fact that nobody pays taxes willingly and that includes liberals. Myself, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who would say that they pay their taxes willingly. And if you raise the rate of taxation on some people are they going to pay their taxes more or less willingly than they do now? Let's see how willingly the rich pays their taxes at the rate now. How many of them are avowed liberals? Click on the picture for the link.

And we must admit one more thing. These persons are but a few of the rich who could afford to pay their taxes but didn't. And we can say that they only paid their taxes because they got caught not paying them. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many more persons such as these who are just as guilty of tax evasion but just have not been caught for some reason or another. I would further propose that tax evasion occurs not only in the class of the rich but that it occurs in every class of taxpayers.

As anyone who lives by a budget knows, taxes is an expense item just as any other expense item listed in that budget. Yet when it comes to paying that expense it has the lowest of priorities in our lives. We are far more willing to pay any other expense than we are of taxes. What is it about taxes that we give it our lowest priority?

I think that there are as many reasons for it as there are persons to take on this question and place an answer to it. My take on it can be summed up with three thoughts. Those thoughts being;

It is the one item in our personal budget that we do not perceive as a necessity to sustain our individual Life. It is the one item in our budget that we perceive as going against every principle of the meaning of personal Liberty. It is the one item in our budget that is an obstacle in our personal Pursuit of Happiness.

And I'll add one more reason. It is the one expense item that is imposed upon persons rather than accepted as a result of a agreement between two parties. It is the only expense item that a person could end up in prison for not paying even if it means not paying some other more important expense.

Here is my challenge to every liberal in the nation. If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is the right thing to do then do it.  If you honestly believe that raising taxes on the people is being fiscally responsible then do it. If you believe that raising taxes is abiding by the will of the people then do it.  But be willing to raise them high enough so that tax revenues equal expenses of the federal and state governments as well as the local governments each and every fiscal year. Then raise them a bit more to start paying off the debts of this nation.

Let's see just how fiscally responsible it turns out to be. There is no excuse for not doing it if you really believe that is the way to go. If you do not than everything you promise, every word you say is nothing but empty rhetoric and shows that your ideology has no merit.

UPDATE:
Just an added thought that I might pass along to all that I have challenged.  If it is additional revenue that is needed to balance the budget and to pay off the debt of the government then it must come from somewhere and someone.  As we see the rich will try to get out of paying it and unless we do raise taxes then the burden must fall upon our children.  Let's hear what they have to say about taking on the burden of the debt.



So, what say you, my liberal friends?  Do the youth of our nation give you even greater incentive to do what you think is right by raising the taxes on the people?

A h/t to "The Conservative Girl" for the video.

15 Reasons why Redistribution of Wealth is Poor Politics

Click on Picture for Story

Politicians are always citing statistics in regards to earned income gaps between the rich and the poor to justify their claim for the need for redistribution of wealth. That in itself should reveal the foolishness of the concept. A person's wealth is not determined by his earned income but by the accumulation of assets. And the question a person should be asking is how do you accumulate assets?

When you get right down to the nuts and bolts of the issue a person should realize that it isn't about how much money a person earns but how a person spends the money that he earns that is the biggest factor between the rich and the poor. A person can spend that earned income accumulating debts or he can spend his earned income accumulating assets. And how a person spends his earned income is a choice that only he can make. His own decisions in life will determine whether or not he ends up rich or poor.

The Beauty That is being Commemorated on This Day.

From this:

To This in Three Days:

As we were walking out of the church doors I looked up at grandpa and grandma and asked, “Why was the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Christ a necessity for our salvation as the good reverend said when the Father is all powerful and could have granted forgiveness for the sin of Adam?”

Grandpa and grandma just looked down at me than looked at each other with a pleased grin on their faces. Then grandma looked back down at me and said,

“Boy, that is a good question and a question that has been pondered over many times since that blessed event and it probably will be pondered over until the end of time because only the Father can answer that question truthfully as it needs to be answered. But your grandfather and I have come to the conclusion that the answer can be found in John 3:16.

'For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.' Love, boy, is not something that is given out of need but it is given freely and consensually. And the Crucifixion and Resurrection was the means chosen to show mankind just how much love God has for him.  So, as far as your grandfather and I are concerned you are correct in your implication that they were not needed or a requirement of our salvation. Love does not require or need anything. But in order for man to understand that love, it must be shown. God showed us His love in a manner that no man can truly comprehend thus man justifies it by logically declaring that it was needed and a requirement for our salvation.” "HAPPY EASTER, EVERYONE. MAY THE LOVE OF GOD BE REVEALED IN EVERY HEART."

If You're a Politician, Should Cheating End Your Career?

Click on Picture for the article

The above title is the title of an article I ran across today. Here is the link to the Article.  While the article gives no definite answer to the question the answer can be said as implicit. And based upon the premise the author seeks to use, the answer might be considered as obvious. But I'll ask the question using a different premise from the one used.

Marriage is a commitment and the basis of this commitment is found in the vows of that each person  have espoused to the other person. Taking a seat in government is another commitment that some of us will make in our lives. And before we are allowed to call ourselves a representative of the people or a representative of a State we must also take a vow of office.

The question then becomes;

Marriage is probably the most important commitment a person can make in their lives. If we think so little of the vows we have taken in regards to marriage then how can we be trusted to take the vows of the office of government seriously?

Who are the Real Servants of the People?

I need to say no more about my stance on government and who are the real servants of the people. This video says it all for me. To me, this video exemplifies the difference in the meaning behind "In God we Trust" and "In Government we Trust". For in this video we see how government shows its belief in the people instead of demanding that the people show its belief in government.

a h/t to the professor over at Legal Insurrection for this video and story.

Electronic Stores in Two States Offer Free Guns

"A chain of electronic stores in parts of the states of Idaho and Montana are offering free guns to first-time subscribers of satellite TV services.
The new promotions by combination RadioShack and Dish Network dealerships in western Montana and another in southwest Idaho have attracted crowds that range from the merely curious to the firearm-friendly."
More of the story here



Have you gotten your free gun yet, BB?