Oklahoma HB 2656 and HB 2780

CNN posted a story today By Mary Alice Carr


This story is a little disturbing as written because she wrote the story with a different twist than every other story I've read on the issue so far.  What we have here is a perfect description of what happens when our Governments gets too big and too powerful.  This story as written is designed to SCARE you into thinking that Doctors can now and will lie to prevent abortions.

The situation is much more complicated and no where near as bad as it sounds.  What you need to be aware of is the HB 2780 also mentioned has been dubbed the Sonogram bill, making it a requirement for all mothers to be given a Sonogram. The bill would require the procedure be done and the mother be given the "option" to view the results.  That makes the threat of HB 2656 very small.  If they had passed HB 2656 without HB 2780 there would be a huge gap in Women's rights but that doesn't seem to be the case here in Oklahoma.

Pro-Choice people are trying to spin it that way to create support for the Pro-Choice movement in Oklahoma which is VERY SMALL.  See HB 2656 is really about tort reform in preventing law suits.  HB 2780 ensures that women will in fact have access to the information on the health of their fetus.  Pro-Choice people are pissed about that as well because now a woman cannot get an abortion without first being given the Sonogram.  See it's win win or a lose lose depending on your perspective.

Like so many other issues today they are never as clear as they seem until you look at more than one source of information.

Cheers,

Mike

13 Countries with the least Religious Freedom

The U.S. Religious freedom Commission recently released a list of the 13 countries with the least amount of religious freedom. The List included all 8 of the nations on the same list last year. 


Those on the list include:

• Myanmar (Burma)
• China
• Eritrea
• Iran
• North Korea
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Uzbekistan
• Iraq
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Turkmenistan
• Vietnam

Funny how all of these Nations also have governments who are no friend to America and the American Way way of life.  Possibly the most disturbing name on that list is Iraq, after all of the influence we have on that Nation we should think they would be more open to religious freedom, especially after the Saddam regime. 
The panel did criticize the current and former administrations in Washington for doing far too little to make basic religious rights universal.

This should give us something to think about as we wonder the actions of our own government as we continue to lose more and more freedom every year.  It doesn't really matter where you stand on matters of religion, the freedom of religion is one of the most basic rights.  Without this right, no other freedom is truly attainable.   
Cheers,

Mike

Slate editor David Plotz calls people to arms and violence against wall street

Compare this to any rhetoric from the Tea Party.

Cheers,

Mike

Arizona Immigration Reform

Violence broke out and there wasn't a Tea Party person in sight, oh no!  It must be a lie.  Arizona's law hasn't even gone into effect yet but people have already been rioting in the streets.  Some of these people actually got into physical altercations which required police intervention.  At least two arrests were made during a protest where bottles had been thrown at Police.  None of the violence or arrests were covered by the mainstream media.

The only place that covered any of the outbursts and fights were talk radio hosts and Fox News.  Everywhere else you look you see coverage of protests but nothing about the violence.  Why is it that when Liberal Policy supporters protest, people often get violent and end up in jail yet when Conservative Policy supporters protest there are rarely an real issues.  Then this seems to have no effect on whether or not the media cover the events.  It's almost like the media supports one side but not the other.  hhhmmm.

The Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer has been attacked by our President and by many others on how misguided these actions have been.  The law has been misrepresented and some like Al Sharpton have spoken out saying, "this is not a fight between minorities this is a fight for justice and fairness for everyone".  He went further suggesting that they might send protesters to Arizona to challenge the system.    

Many claim that this Arizona law will lead to minorities being unjustly treated while simply being racially profiled.  Jan Brewer has ensured that no racial profiling will be tolerated.  She also urged the U.S. Government to take the lead on this issue, but admitted that this might never happen.  The Arizona law is set to go into effect this summer and will only allow Police to ask questions about their citizenship status after they have probable cause of some other crime, they cannot assume a person might be illegal as probably cause.

Will this law solve all the problems with illegal immigration?  Probably not, but it's a start and a step in the right direction.  I live in Illinois so I can't speak on the issues of having illegal sneaking through our borders but I can say the even hundreds of miles from the border plenty are getting through, I can only imagine how much worse it must be in the cities and towns right on the border. 

Worse still, Glenn Beck warned yesterday that all the fuss with Immigration might only be yet another smoke screen to help cover more pressing legislation the administration and Congress is in the process of unveiling.  We all need to keep eyes and ears open.  Let's see what this new Chicago "CCX" plan is all about.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Social Democrats Democracy and Democratic Socialism

We need to stop being quiet. We need to tell everyone who will listen that Socialists are not supporting American ideals. They want to CHANGE America. The real question is, what does a Socialist or a Social Democrat want to Change America into?

Social Democrats USA
Wikipedia on Social Democracy
Wikipedia on Democratic Socialism

Some self-identified democratic socialists oppose the concept of social democracy, seeing it as capitalist. Others claim to accept Free Market principles but reject the idea that some industries such as the Health Care Industry should not be allowed to make a profit. They can't even agree on whether or not Capitalism/Free Market principles are a good idea.

The next time you hear someone say I'm a Social (Blank) you better ask them to explain themselves.

Not Racist
Not Violent
No Longer Silent

Cheers,

Mike

Cass Susstein on Conspiracy Throries

The Actual Paper on Conspiracy Theories Authored By Cass Susstein and Adrain Vermeule.

This is Obama's Regulatory Czar.

You really should read this paper.

Cheers,

Mike

ACORN dissolved but not really

ACORN has lost it's battle for Federal Funding when the Supreme Court refused to hear it's case claiming that Congress action to defund is not constitutional. ACORN is now technically dissolved, but as Glenn Beck and many others predicted, this does not mean the group is gone. This is a list of known groups that have splintered from ACORN and now operate under Different Names.

Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment

New York Communities for Change

New England United

Affordable Housing Centers of America

Arkansas Community Organizations

Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change

Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment

Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change

Washington Organizations United for Reform

The Tea Party movement is a bowl movement

ACORN Leader Bertha Lewis speaking at a meeting of THE YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS says, "The Tea Party Movement is a Bowl Movement". Acorn leader is a socialist, who knew?

In the current battle, what side are you on?

I apologize in advance for sounding so dramatic.

There is a battle going on right now, not in the middle east but right here on U.S. soil. This battle has been brewing for a while actually, but shots have finally been fired and the battle is joined. These are figurative shots of course, don't want to give any my fellow Militia Men any ideas, but shots non the less. Our Great Nation is in a terrible state, we're in debt and a once powerful economy is battered beyond belief.

This battle is between two sides, those who want to blame the rich and those who want to blame the poor. Our Leaders rather than jumping to the rescue are pointing fingers at one another. Some want to punish the rich and others want to cutback which would only impact those in need. These actions only stoke the flames of war.

Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are being singled out as racist and potentially violent. All the while no one notices that the Tea Party is giving us a third option. Is it really Wall Street's responsibility? Can we really blame the Welfare State? Or, should we blame the folks who wrote the rules and created the system in the first place?

I have come to the realization that the Government is the problem. Ronald Reagan came to this very same conclusion over 20 years ago.

Government is the problem sound bite Ronald Reagan sound bites

Since Reagan left office, those in Washington have gone back to business as usual and look where we are now. Saddled with debt and looking down the barrel of a tax gun, the likes of which we have never seen before on this land. As I write this those in Washington who swear their goal is not to turn the U.S. into a socialist, European like nation are proposing a VAT tax that will likely raise the cost of common consumer items up to 30%. This is happening while the current administration is accepting no responsibility placing blame for the financial meltdown squarely on Wall Street.

This is classic misdirection, "pay no attention to what we're doing, the real villain is over there the one holding the bag of money, pay no attention to the bags of money sticking out of my pockets. I'm using this money to help better society because I know much better than you do how to improve your life." Is this why we vote in elections every few years?

This war is being fought by each and every one of us, there are causalities every day even if no news organization is reporting on the deaths without first picking a side which to place blame. The question is which side are you on? Are you fighting for freedom or are you waiting for the chips to fall where they may so you might be allowed to pick up some scraps when everything is said and done.

Pick a side and fight, but don't fight unless you fight to win.

Not Racist
Not Violent
No Longer Silent

Cheers,

Mike

Threats at Anti-Bush Protests Ignored for Years

But the Tea Party is the real threat!

Anti-Tea Party Groups Don't Get It

Recently some have gotten jealous of all the attention those of us in the Tea Party movement have received in the media. Those folks went out and started their own party, the Coffee Party. Another group called "The other 95%" has also sprouted up in recent time. These groups appear to have one agenda and only one agenda. To present an alternative view to the Tea Party, thereby making it appear that most of the country is not really in support of the Tea Party movement. Those in the Coffee Party seem to be doing this under the guise of friendship and working together.

Another odor that seems to emanate from these groups is the stench of wealth envy. Class Warfare does not seem to be of concern to these people, they seem to have an attitude that if they aren't going to get an inheritance when mom dies, no one should. They are OK with and some are even happy that 2011 will see a return of Pre-Bush estate taxes as high as 50% thanks to President Obama. They are cheerleading for the Obama tax cuts BECAUSE, the RICH aren't getting them. They want you to be happy because you have an extra few dollars in you paycheck, and are now able to get a basket full of tax credits, thanks to the infinite wisdom of "The Stimulus Bill".

The fact these "Tax Credits" are being added directly to the national debt is of no concern to them what so ever. Some have actually begun to believe the hype, deciding to buy into this idea that the stimulus bill has actually saved jobs, and not only prolonged the period of decline so the losses can be suffered sometime down the road. Is a job really saved because it has funding for another year or two, even if there is no plan on how to correct the shortfall in the first place?

Consider the fictional saying, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. These groups actually want us to believe that, they also want us to believe that making the rich more poor will make the poor more rich. Does that make any sense? It may make sense only if you actually believe in Socialistic Redistribution of Wealth. Main problem with that is the poor aren't going to be able to buy much with that money once it runs out, and our economy and our jobs will be the ones to truly suffer.

Cheers,

Mike

Alan Greenspan on the Cost of Health Care Reform

Recently Alan Greenspan said this on the Cost of Health Care Reform, "If we're wrong on the cost estimates the consequences are quite severe"!

Glenn Beck jokes, "severe likes a broken leg or severe like we're all going to die"?

This is a serious issue, we're to trust the CBO estimates on the cost of this Health care reform non-sense but when is the Government ever right about what a new program or project is going to cost? When do they ever get it right the first time?At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (This estimate allowed for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. Medicare Part A was estimated at NEVER going over $9 Billion dollars but it's actual current cost if almost $70 Billion. In 2007, total Medicare spending was over $400 billion.

How can we even consider the current estimates? What has our government done recently to make us trust their ability to accurately estimate the cost of anything as innocent as a toilet seat much less a program that by all accounts is somewhere in the $1 Trillion neighborhood. The thought that this figure will even be close is laughable. I guess at least we'll have an opportunity to see what severe consequences are in the mind of Alan Greenspan.

Cheers,

Mike

Obama blames an unfettered market place!

Today our president shared some more of his insight on the American way of life. I'm sure I'm not the only one who picked up on this but I can't help but share my thoughts. He said,

"I think all of us recognize that we cannot have a circumstance in which a meltdown in the financial sector once again puts the entire economy in peril, and that if there's one lesson that we've learned it's that an unfettered market where people are taking huge risks and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when things go sour is simply not acceptable."

Am I the only one who would like to know what unfettered market he is speaking of. The definition of unfettered is free or unrestrained. Is there such a thing as an unfettered market anyone? Can anyone think of a single business, industry or sector that is not controlled, or regulated by the government. Liberals like to say Republicans deregulated the banks which caused much of our problems but really there was no DEREGULATION. Not real deregulation, it's not like the Federal Government ever wiped it's hands and said, "Ok now you guys can do what ever you want how ever you want". They simply loosened it up and bit. It's still the guys in Congress who wrote the rules they were required to follow. It's still Washington that made it possible for the funny business that went on.

Now Obama thinks that the American people are dumb enough to believe this simply because he said it. Possibly even more disturbing is the part of expecting taxpayers to bail them out. Is that really how it went, those companies came knocking on the door demanding to be bailed out. I think many of us were screaming to let them fail.

I don't know how much more of this I can take.

Cheers,

Mike

Coffee Party and Working Group on Extreme Inequality

The Coffee Party recently posted a story from an online group, the Working Group on Extreme inequality which posted a story "For a ‘Living Wage’ America, Cap the Top". This is basically a story on how and why we need more income redistribution in America. This story had some interesting admissions on how this group envisions a living wage by becoming more like the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. Here is some insight on their article.

First a quick examination of the articles tag line.

"The White House wants to require firms that do business with the government to pay decent wages. That could work — if we go after all pay that’s indecent. "

This suggests that their is such a thing as indecent pay, which would naturally lead one to assume they are speaking of the CEO type salaries and not wages at Wal-mart. Even if one believes that these salaries are in fact ridiculously high are they really indecent? To think this way you must first be in the mindset that an American company does not have the right to choose how much to compensate it's top leadership. In other words, there is a point where the compensation is too high and a company must choose for the greater good of the common "workers" to reduce that pay.

IS THAT AMERICA!!!
IS THAT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS ABOUT?

The articles continues,

Labels can often cloud reality. Take the labels of “private” and “public” sector. We employ these labels all the time, to divide our economy into totally separate compartments, as if the “private” and “public” sectors represented two entirely different economic universes

That's because they do represent two totally different economic sectors. The private sector pays it's own bills with it's own money and the public sector sector works for us, and pays it's bills with OUR money. Yes it's true that they are interconnected but the public sector was never intended to be where one goes in order to make a lucrative living. Working in the public sector was always looked at as a noble thing to do. And for that you were rewarded with a safe and secure living and retirement. Now people are looking to the public sector because that's where the money is. Excuse me?

Without all these tax dollars, the U.S. economy would grind to a halt. And that reality, savvy policy makers have always understood, creates some interesting opportunities. By leveraging the power of the public purse — by denying, for instance, tax dollars to companies that behave poorly — governments can encourage business behavior that helps us build a better society.

This is true, the economy would grind to halt and that is precisely why we should all be scared to death right now. Our economy relies so heavily on the public sector that if it went away or became bankrupt the rest of us would suffer until free market principles are restored. What is more likely in this case is that the Government would then claim that more power is needed to bring us back and all free market principles would be thrown away. Please note the last sentence, governments can encourage business behavior that helps us build a better society.

Is this what the United States is about? Is this why millions of immigrants from all over the world came to the U.S. ? So they can live in a Nation where the Government encourages business behavior? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is exactly they kind of oppression that most fled when coming to this country. GOVERNMENT, does not encourage ANYTHING!!! It commands, under threat of force. Uncle Sam does not tap you on the shoulder and ask you, to maybe, please try this... He puts a gun to your head and demands it. That is not encouragement, it's use of force.

• If you're in business right now, ask yourself, do you have a choice to pay your taxes?

• If you choose not to pay your taxes what will happen to you and your business?

• What if you do not agree with how your tax dollars are being spent, can you refuse to pay that portion?

Consider for a moment the classic Uncle Sam art work. Stearn Face with pointed finger.

In the mid 1990s, in Baltimore, economic justice activists set off on a similar course. Tax dollars, they argued, should not go to companies that pay poverty wages. The city eventually agreed. In quick order, activists in localities across the United States had won what became known as “living wage” ordinances.

To win a local government contract, these living wage ordinances stipulated, businesses had to pay wages high enough to keep their workers out of poverty.

I invite you to do some quick research on how great living in Baltimore is really. Just some quick stats to consider when compared to the top 10 places to live according to CNN. Baltimore's median income is $45,814 which is $52,000.00 less than the average of the top ten and job growth is 14% less. In fact Baltimore ranks far worse than even 95 to 100 of the top 100 places to live in the U.S.. Baltimore has more job growth than only 1 of those 5 cities and that city still has a higher median income. I guess a living wage is fine if that's all you want.

Lastly I would like to point out the UK, Germany and the Netherlands all have systems heavily steeped in Socialistic ideals and all three in recent time have begun incorporating privatization into their systems in order to improve things on their soil. With this in mind, why are there so many who would have us run in their direction?

Cheers,

Mike

Danville IL Tax Day Tea Party

Our Website
www.ecitea.org

We are hosting our 2nd Annual Tax Day Tea Party at Lincoln Park in Danville, IL on Tax Day, April 15th from 11:30AM to 1:30 PM

This is our venue to express distaste for ever increasing taxes while our leaders spend with reckless abandon.

Notable Speakers will include:
Al Reynolds IL Dist. 52 Senate Candidate
Michael Puhr IL Dist. 104 House of Rep. Candidate
Chad Hays IL Dist. 104 House of Rep. Candidate
As well as Hannah Landis, Joe Tharp, Nick Royal, Candy Wiersma and Ken Cooley
We Surround Them!

Speaking Schedule
11:30 Al Reynolds
11:45 Hannah Landis
12:00 Joe Tharp
12:30 Nick Royal
12:45 Michael Puhr
1:00 Chad Hays
1:15 Candy Wiersma
1:30 Ken Cooley
2:00 Al Reynolds to close the Show.

Constitutional Amendment needed to protect the children!

Does anyone else have a problem with the idea that a 26 year old is still a kid?

Aside from all the other issues with the the Health Care Legislation recently signed into law, one in particular creates a real quarrel with conventional thinking. The thought that a 26 year old is now considered a dependent. If the legislation would have called for coverage up to one year after completion of a post-secondary education it may have made more sense, but to put an age on it means that the Congress is now deciding for us how old a person may be while still retaining dependent status. This of course also means that they are leaving the door open to modify that number in the future.

This raises a question about Article 1 section 2 of the United State Constitution. This is the section that spells out the age and citizenship requirements to be a Representative in the House. If a 26 year old in now legally a dependent, do we need to raise the age one qualifies to be a Congressman? Should we also then raise the age for Senators and the President as well? This seems to be a valid question in my opinion. It seems nonsensical to me that a child be allowed to run for public office in the Federal Government.

We could go even further. We currently have child labor laws that dictate what and where a child may be employed. These of course are in place to protect our children from being subjected to harsh and unsafe environments. Without these regulations our children might still be subject to injury while working in factories and lose their rights to a safe and structured childhood. With this in mind should we not extend these same rights to everyone up to the age of 26?

Just something to think about.

Cheers,

Mike

Leonard Pitts attacks Glenn Beck again!

Leonard Pitts the Opinion columnist for the Miami Herald should be ashamed of himself. He seems to have a personal vendetta against Glenn Beck and has no problem going so far as to lie in order to discredit him. In his March 2010 column about Glenn Beck and Social Justice, he states that Glenn said "Social Justice" is code word for Nazism and communism. In fact Glenn Beck said "Social Justice" was code word for "Marxism." It just so happens that both Communism and Nazism have roots in Marxism, but that does not mean all who preach Social Justice are Nazi's or Communists. Many are simply ignorant to the fact they are related and have themselves been sucked in by the feel good idea that Social Justice is simply innocent terminology.

The really shocking thing about this whole story is that Rev. Jim Wallace openly admits that he believes the bible is about Social Justice and Redistribution of Wealth. This is why Mr. Beck told his audience to investigate and run away as fast as they can if they find this to be the case in their church or place of worship. Leonard Pitts claims to have ran this by 2 other preachers who second Wallis's testament. I guess those are the kind of people that Leonard Pitts surrounds himself with.

I do not claim to be a world renowned theologian or any kinds of bible scholar but I'm pretty sure that the Bible does not speak of redistribution of wealth. I mean which section would that be exactly, Barrack 10:13 and he said, "It's not that I want to punish your success it's just that I want to make sure that everyone who's behind you has a chance for success to, I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

I'm pretty sure Jim Wallis is reading his bible a little differently than most, but I'll let each of you make that decision for yourself.

Cheers,

Mike