I say that we all chip in and buy these disgraceful assholes one way tickets to Cuba or Venezuela.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Congressman West Gets Some Love from his District
The congressman went home for the weekend and went immediately to a meeting with his constituents at 10:30 on a Friday night. He gave a short speech and they break out singing God Bless America at the end of his speech.
The chorus for him to run for president is getting louder. I hope that he stays within himself and continues to realize that he isn't ready for that.
H/T The War Room
The chorus for him to run for president is getting louder. I hope that he stays within himself and continues to realize that he isn't ready for that.
H/T The War Room
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Patriotic Progressive Left
Laura Ingraham interviews one of the "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Responsibility". They are affiliated with Wealth for the Common Good and The Agenda Project. The founder of which has ties to George Soros. Shocker that you can take five minutes and find Soros' dirty little fingerprints.
What I really enjoyed about this video is that the millionaire who is complaining about his lower taxes even says he would write a bigger check if he knew that the money wouldn't be wasted. Does he think that the money won't be wasted if the tax rate is higher? That is the problem. I would venture to say that many people across this country would be willing to pay additional taxes if it actually went down to pay the debt. I would do it, to me it would be my contribution to the prosperity for the next generation of Americans. The reason that I fight paying higher taxes is the fact that they waste the money.
Really? The guy in the video even said himself that they waste the money.
They also leave these two little facts - There is a website that will allow you to give money to the treasury, and none of these people are being stopped from filling out a 1040EZ and paying 35% on the full amount of income without any additiional write offs.
I, for one, am sick to death of being told that I have to give up more of my money to be considered patriotic. I feel that asking the government to be more responsible with the money that is collected from hard working Americans is the most patriotic thing I can do.
What I really enjoyed about this video is that the millionaire who is complaining about his lower taxes even says he would write a bigger check if he knew that the money wouldn't be wasted. Does he think that the money won't be wasted if the tax rate is higher? That is the problem. I would venture to say that many people across this country would be willing to pay additional taxes if it actually went down to pay the debt. I would do it, to me it would be my contribution to the prosperity for the next generation of Americans. The reason that I fight paying higher taxes is the fact that they waste the money.
Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years
Really? The guy in the video even said himself that they waste the money.
During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%What they didn't put with their nifty little stats is the fact that when the tax rates were this high, that the rich found ways of hiding major portions of their income so they paid even less taxes than what they would pay with the lower rates.
In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%
In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%
They also leave these two little facts - There is a website that will allow you to give money to the treasury, and none of these people are being stopped from filling out a 1040EZ and paying 35% on the full amount of income without any additiional write offs.
I, for one, am sick to death of being told that I have to give up more of my money to be considered patriotic. I feel that asking the government to be more responsible with the money that is collected from hard working Americans is the most patriotic thing I can do.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Conservative Principles Vs. Progressive Principles
I came across a lovely post about the differences between the worldview of government based on conservative principles vs. progressive principles:
#1 Social Justice
A primary goal of progressive policies is to guarantee social justice, which can be generally defined as treating everyone equally well, and correcting “the system” to ensure that equality. Basically, an individual is not responsible for his/her relative position economically, and to assert as much is to “blame the victim.” As such, the function of social justice is to blame the system and those who control it (source).
Examples: Abiding by this principle, progressives work to eliminate concentrations of wealth and power in society, and believe that government should regulate economic activity to promote the common good. This is demonstrated in policy by a wealth redistribution plan that takes a larger percent of taxes from wealthy individuals, and spreads the wealth to lower income citizens through a variety of welfare programs. Social justice is also a factor in progressive policies that encourage open borders and illegal immigration (since, for example, Mexicans can't control where they're born) as well as support for things like slavery reparations.
The Conservative View: Conservatives, in contrast, are not big believers in social justice. We believe that principles like equal opportunity and individual responsibility are sufficient to level the economic and social playing fields. These principles conflict with the concept of social justice because they don’t assume problems are systemic, and they don’t presume that government can guarantee equality.
Read the rest here. It is well worth your time.
#1 Social Justice
A primary goal of progressive policies is to guarantee social justice, which can be generally defined as treating everyone equally well, and correcting “the system” to ensure that equality. Basically, an individual is not responsible for his/her relative position economically, and to assert as much is to “blame the victim.” As such, the function of social justice is to blame the system and those who control it (source).
Examples: Abiding by this principle, progressives work to eliminate concentrations of wealth and power in society, and believe that government should regulate economic activity to promote the common good. This is demonstrated in policy by a wealth redistribution plan that takes a larger percent of taxes from wealthy individuals, and spreads the wealth to lower income citizens through a variety of welfare programs. Social justice is also a factor in progressive policies that encourage open borders and illegal immigration (since, for example, Mexicans can't control where they're born) as well as support for things like slavery reparations.
The Conservative View: Conservatives, in contrast, are not big believers in social justice. We believe that principles like equal opportunity and individual responsibility are sufficient to level the economic and social playing fields. These principles conflict with the concept of social justice because they don’t assume problems are systemic, and they don’t presume that government can guarantee equality.
Read the rest here. It is well worth your time.
Liberal Human Rights Icon Jesse Jackson Being Sued for Harassment
This whole thing is a more than a little smutty, but I couldn't resist posting on this. It is too rich to pass up on. An openly gay man, Tommy R. Bennet has filed a lawsuit against Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition. The lawsuit has some eye opening claims:
Read the whole sorid story here.
However, the most explosive charges revolve around Jackson himself. First, Bennett claims that at an all-staff meeting in 2008, he requested an LGBT-themed table for the national convention—and was flatly denied. When Bennett questioned why there could not be a table, Jackson allegedly "cursed at Mr. Bennett in front of all of the staff, and Rev. Jackson was visibly upset during the rest of the meeting."Why Jackson is considered such an Icon to people is beyond my comprehension. He is a Reverend who cheats on his wife, this we know to be true because of the daughter born out of wedlock. His flip flop on abortion only once he wanted to run for president. No pro life democrat could ever get elected president. His lies about the death of Dr. King and going on the Today show in blood stained shirt. I have no way of knowing if these allegations are true or not, but with his track record I would say settling this case quietly would be the wisest course of action.
Bennett also claims that he had to escort women to Jackson's room and "clean up his room after sexual intercourse with women. Mr. Bennett believes he was forced to do these tasks due to his sexual orientation," adding that he had to escort women to such places as the Sheraton Hotel in New York and the Wynn Hotel and Resort in Las Vegas. Bennett claims that he let Jackson know that he "was uncomfortable cleaning up his hotel rooms, escorting women to his hotel room, being summoned to his hotel room after hours or packing his clothes."
Bennett then states that another time at the same hotel, Jackson summoned him at 1 a.m. to take notes. The complaint states, "When Mr. Bennett arrived, Rev. Jackson was dressed only in his briefs and a v-neck t-shirt." Bennett alleges Jackson was sexually excited. Asked by Windy City Times how he came to this conclusion, Bennett said, "I could tell by his look. His whole demeanor had changed. His breathing pattern had changed."
The complaint continues: "Before Mr. Bennett left, Rev. Jackson stated that white folks took the word 'gay' and gave the word its own definition. Rev. Jackson further stated that he was a real poor child in North Carolina and his name was first Jesse Burns, and then Jesse Robinson and then he became Jesse Jackson.
"Rev. Jackson stated that he played football and there was a gay high school teacher who took Rev. Jackson under his wings and told him that he needed education to go along with football. Rev. Jackson said, '[F]rom that gay teacher, I got a good grade, I got to use his car, I got ten dollars and I got my dick sucked.' Rev. Jackson said, '[T]hat's not gay, that is surviving.'" Bennett alleges this meant Rev. Jackson wanted sex, but that Bennett then left the room.
Read the whole sorid story here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Just How Unengaged are Parents?
The news of how the rights of parents are being usurped is commonplace now. We now have the news that in Chicago, it is up to the principal of the school how children are fed lunch during the school day. The school district allows a person that the parent has no control over the hiring of, to decide if the child can bring lunch from home. Other schools in Chicago have the right to take away snacks if they contain too much sugar or salt. Who exactly decides what is too much? In Fairfax County, Virginia they are playing around with the chocolate milk to get the "right amount" of sweetener. Apparently, this is a concession to the parents who wanted the milk to be brought back as a choice for the kids, as it was removed from schools recently. Children need the vitamins they get from milk and some will not drink white milk. While I wouldn't give my kid chocolate milk with every meal, having it at lunch during the week is not going to kill them.
In the Chicago school system the principal feels that she is protecting the students from unhealthy choices. What she is really saying is that parents are too stupid to make good choices for their children. This is the liberal orthodoxy of the one size fits all. She knows far better what is right for every child in that school than their own parents do. The reporter that went to school noticed that many of the children just threw out the food uneaten.
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
The reporter also talked to several parents about this program:
I am not a big believer in letting young children drink soda. There is far too much sugar in it. I am also not a big believer in many of the so-called "juices" on the market. Many of them of so full of sugar that they may as well drink the soda. But there are good juices out there. You can even buy Kool-Aid and control the amount of sugar you put in the drink yourself. Children can be very picky eaters. If they are being given food that they don't like they just won't eat. I don't eat food that I don't like, why would children be an exception to that?
I know a mom who is kind of a control freak and plans her menu a week in advance. She does most of her cooking on Sundays for the week. Her child gets things like a smoked turkey sandwich on wheat bread with provolone cheese and mustard. Sometimes he gets peanut butter on wheat with spreadable fruit that has no added sugar to it. He gets things like carrots with low-fat ranch dressing for dipping. He is also is given apple slices, crushed pineapple in juice, yogurt, vegetable soup, or sliced chicken breast. He also is willing to eat cold chicken meatloaf. I seriously doubt anything given in a school cafeteria is any healthier than this. More than likely that food contains more fat and sodium, as I am sure much of the food is processed. The budgets for school lunches is very small and they buy in bulk. (Although the school system gets a kickback from the federal government for each school lunch sold....hmm they make money from forcing this policy on parents.)
What I found most annoying about the article about the Chicago schools is that it seems that many of the kids and the parents are not happy with this arrangement, yet they do nothing about it. These are their children. If you don't want your children to go hungry because they don't like the food choices that someone else is making for them then stand up and do something about it. There is no reason that these parents cannot demand that this policy be thrown to the wastebasket where most of the school lunches end up.
There is nothing wrong with schools trying to teach children about the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise. What the problem is that they are usurping parental rights. It is high time that parents start being engaged in what is going on their kid's school and their lives for that matter. They are paying for that school. Public schools are not free, your taxes pay for them. The nanny state is no longer is just creeping into our lives, it has become an all out assault. I, for one, am not going to go quietly. If the majority of the parents in this school system start demanding their rights as the parents of these children, the school will back down. Just ask the parents of Fairfax County. While chocolate milk may seem like a small thing, it is a victory for all freedom loving people.
In the Chicago school system the principal feels that she is protecting the students from unhealthy choices. What she is really saying is that parents are too stupid to make good choices for their children. This is the liberal orthodoxy of the one size fits all. She knows far better what is right for every child in that school than their own parents do. The reporter that went to school noticed that many of the children just threw out the food uneaten.
At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.
The reporter also talked to several parents about this program:
"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."Then we have this parent:
"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."
But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."There is no control over the food? This is an elementary school, who exactly is buying the groceries and packing the lunch at this home? You have no control when you turn it over to someone else, not when you are packing it yourself. This is just one further example of the how our society has turned into a bunch of sheeple who are allowing complete strangers to make our choices for us. This sounds more like a man who can't be bothered to take care of these issues for himself. He would much rather than other people make the choices for him.
I am not a big believer in letting young children drink soda. There is far too much sugar in it. I am also not a big believer in many of the so-called "juices" on the market. Many of them of so full of sugar that they may as well drink the soda. But there are good juices out there. You can even buy Kool-Aid and control the amount of sugar you put in the drink yourself. Children can be very picky eaters. If they are being given food that they don't like they just won't eat. I don't eat food that I don't like, why would children be an exception to that?
I know a mom who is kind of a control freak and plans her menu a week in advance. She does most of her cooking on Sundays for the week. Her child gets things like a smoked turkey sandwich on wheat bread with provolone cheese and mustard. Sometimes he gets peanut butter on wheat with spreadable fruit that has no added sugar to it. He gets things like carrots with low-fat ranch dressing for dipping. He is also is given apple slices, crushed pineapple in juice, yogurt, vegetable soup, or sliced chicken breast. He also is willing to eat cold chicken meatloaf. I seriously doubt anything given in a school cafeteria is any healthier than this. More than likely that food contains more fat and sodium, as I am sure much of the food is processed. The budgets for school lunches is very small and they buy in bulk. (Although the school system gets a kickback from the federal government for each school lunch sold....hmm they make money from forcing this policy on parents.)
What I found most annoying about the article about the Chicago schools is that it seems that many of the kids and the parents are not happy with this arrangement, yet they do nothing about it. These are their children. If you don't want your children to go hungry because they don't like the food choices that someone else is making for them then stand up and do something about it. There is no reason that these parents cannot demand that this policy be thrown to the wastebasket where most of the school lunches end up.
There is nothing wrong with schools trying to teach children about the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise. What the problem is that they are usurping parental rights. It is high time that parents start being engaged in what is going on their kid's school and their lives for that matter. They are paying for that school. Public schools are not free, your taxes pay for them. The nanny state is no longer is just creeping into our lives, it has become an all out assault. I, for one, am not going to go quietly. If the majority of the parents in this school system start demanding their rights as the parents of these children, the school will back down. Just ask the parents of Fairfax County. While chocolate milk may seem like a small thing, it is a victory for all freedom loving people.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Herman Cain Making Traction
Herman Cain is beginning to make some traction. People have actually started putting him in more polls . Recently, PPP has started to include him. One such poll is for Georgia, and he is pulling people away from Newt Gingrich, who is from Georgia orginally.
Cain’s 16% standing is pretty impressive for several reasons. His third place finish comes despite having 15% less name recognition than the rest of the quartet. And even though he’s competing with a second home state candidate he still does better in Georgia than Sarah Palin does in Alaska (15%), Gary Johnson does in New Mexico (13%), or Rick Santorum does in Pennsylvania (11%).Today Herman was in Missouri: This video is not that great, but it is a bit of taste of his speech: If I can find the full speech I will post.
The fact that Cain is the first choice of so many of the people who are familiar with him bodes well for his prospects if he can muster the resources to run a serious campaign.
If you take Cain out of the mix in Georgia Gingrich does lead the way with 31% to 24% for Huckabee, 10% for Palin, 8% for Romney, 5% for Bachmann, 4% for Paul and Pawlenty, and 3% for Haley Barbour.
Anyone That Supports Donald Trump for President is a Fool
Not that I didn't feel this way beforehand, but after his interview with the Wall Street Journal no doubt is left. The Donald talks about how he feels that Obama's presidency is a danger to the United States. So why in the heck would he even consider running as an independent? That all but guarantees that Obama will be re-elected.
“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”Trump's numbers in the polls seem to be rising. This is a man who has to keep telling us that he is a conservative. He never bothers to explain all his campaign contributions to people like Schumer & Co. He even went as far to contribute to Dead Fish Rahm's mayoral campaign. Wasn't that election just a few months ago? Yeah, I seem to remember that it was. Trump's conservatism is no different than the criminal who tells the judge he has found Jesus since the crime and begs for mercy, chances are it is more a matter of convenience then some sort of conversion.
Trump's biggest appeal seems to be his embrace of the birthers. Those who believe that Obama was born in Kenya will listen to nothing. It doesn't matter that the republican governor of Hawaii had it checked out before the election. The person was obviously paid off or just lying. They stick to fantasy about his trip to Pakistan as further proof. The Internet rumor that American citizens were not allowed in Pakistan is simply that; a rumor. It simply isn't the truth. God himself could come down and tell these people that Obama was born in Hawaii and they simply wouldn't believe it. It has more do with hatred of the President than of logic or fact. He says his investigators are gathering information and have found things we wouldn't believe. Yet he won't say what these things are. Put up or shut up Donald.
The Donald has been known for his very public skirmishes. He doesn't take to criticism all that kindly. How exactly would he behave if a leader from another country make a remark that he considered a slam? Would he publicly go after that person as well? While Trump has a proven record with being a successful businessman, there is very little else that gives him the temperament or experience that is needed to clean up the mess that we are currently in. Anyone that fits into almost every conversation about how smart they are and what great schools they went to doesn't seem to be all that confident that he is that smart. Who is he trying to convince, me or himself?
From the You Can't Make This Up Files
Stop saying and stop thinking that abortion is a women’s issue.
Normally, I would think this statement is a good thing. I have found that when having a discussion about abortion the rights of men get completely left out of the equation. The most rabidly pro-choice people behave like the fathers of these children have no rights whatsoever. But, that isn’t what this statement is for. No, this is about the transgender community, because after all “men” get pregnant too. Who knew?
Trans men have abortions. Gender queer people have abortions. Two spirit people have abortions. People who do not fit into the box of ‘woman’ have abortions.Gender doesn’t work by what is in your crotch? Two spirit people? Alrighty then.
This is the reality we live in, and the more we pretend otherwise, the more dangerous it is for other people, and the more they are excluded by the movement.
Gender is this thing that we construct out of a million different characteristics. The way we hold our hands. The length of our hair. The shape of our face. What we wear. Our voices. But then, for some reason, when we got to the question of what is it really, we go to what lives between your legs. Even though that’s not how we make gender and that’s not how gender works. It’s in that assumption that gender lives in our crotches, that we end up erasing the reality that men can have abortions, men can get pregnant and give birth.
Read entire post here.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Boehner on Budget and Over Spending
In his first TV interview since the deal was announced. I agree with him, this was a start. We have a long way to go and there is only so much they can do until we get the senate back.
Ho-Hum Romney for President
Today Mitt Romney announced his exploratory committee for a run for the GOP nomination. Did you know that today is the fifth anniversary of Romneycare? All I can say is NEXT!!!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Politico's Winners and Losers of Shutdown Deal
Politico has an article of which they assess the winners and losers of Friday night's last minute deal to avoid the federal shutdown. Winners include Speaker Boehner and Planned Parenthood. The losers include Nancy Pelosi and The District.
They point to the lack of federal funds being used for abortion and the voucher program as the reason why DC has lost. The most obvious thing one can say about the abortion issue is this is just further proof that federal money isn't used for the funding of abortion is an outright lie. But when it is convenient the left will trot out this mantra yet again. Now the district is very left leaning so it is likely that the majority of the residents are pro choice. This being a classified as a loss for The District is understandable from that point of view.
What I don't understand is why the voucher program is considered a loss. The expert that congress hired to look at the program without an political agenda has concluded that the program was successful. It is brought down the shamefully high number of high school drop outs in DC. The voucher program is less expensive than the DC public school system and generates a higher rate of graduations and a higher level of college acceptance. How is that a loser? We are spending less money to get better results. In no way does this program take money away from the public school system. The program actually gives twice as money to the public/charter schools than it does to the vouchers. If a parent wants their child to continue in the current public school they are in they have the right to do it. But for the parents who realize that their child is in a school that is failing them or in a dangerous neighborhood they have the choice to put them in a better school. An education is the key to lifting the poor out of poverty.
Here is a commenter on the Politico article:
Not only will these children get a chance at a better education and are more likely to graduate and go onto college. They will help lift themselves and their families out of poverty that will reduce their dependency on the government dole. Yes, that sounds like a loser to me.
They point to the lack of federal funds being used for abortion and the voucher program as the reason why DC has lost. The most obvious thing one can say about the abortion issue is this is just further proof that federal money isn't used for the funding of abortion is an outright lie. But when it is convenient the left will trot out this mantra yet again. Now the district is very left leaning so it is likely that the majority of the residents are pro choice. This being a classified as a loss for The District is understandable from that point of view.
What I don't understand is why the voucher program is considered a loss. The expert that congress hired to look at the program without an political agenda has concluded that the program was successful. It is brought down the shamefully high number of high school drop outs in DC. The voucher program is less expensive than the DC public school system and generates a higher rate of graduations and a higher level of college acceptance. How is that a loser? We are spending less money to get better results. In no way does this program take money away from the public school system. The program actually gives twice as money to the public/charter schools than it does to the vouchers. If a parent wants their child to continue in the current public school they are in they have the right to do it. But for the parents who realize that their child is in a school that is failing them or in a dangerous neighborhood they have the choice to put them in a better school. An education is the key to lifting the poor out of poverty.
Here is a commenter on the Politico article:
Why do the right hate education so much?OK, my first question to this person would be did you go to the DC public schools? My second would be why do you keep insisting that voucher program isn't designed to help the poor? The only people who can rationally believe that this program is a loser is someone who is so blinded by the liberal left orthodoxy of how unions are the answer to improving our educational system. Even when the facts bear out that this program is a winner.
Not only will these children get a chance at a better education and are more likely to graduate and go onto college. They will help lift themselves and their families out of poverty that will reduce their dependency on the government dole. Yes, that sounds like a loser to me.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Speaker Boehner Won Tonight
There seems to be some consternation on the deal made between Speaker Boehner, Reid and President Obama. Many on the right seem to be unhappy about this and are saying that Boehner caved. Really? I don't think so.
While the cuts were less than the right was hoping for, there is great deal to be happy about with this deal.
There will be an up or down vote on appealing Obamacare on the Senate floor. 23 dem senators are up for re-election next year. Some of those come from states that are very much against Obamacare. Clare McCaskill, Ben Nelson, and Joe Manchin just to name three. They will have to go on the record with a vote. During his campaign, Manchin repeatedly said he was against Obamacare on the federal level. He will now have to put his money where is mouth is. Missouri voted in the last election against mandates and McCaskill has since admitted that the bill needs to be improved. We all remember what an uproar Nelson caused with his vote for Obamacare. I am sure none of these people are happy to find out that they are going to have to make this vote. If they vote yes, they lose their base, if they vote no they lose the independents. It is a no win vote for them and great fundraising material for their opponents.
The additional IRS agents that were to be hired to implement Obamacare have been defunded. This is huge win for the right.
No public funds for abortion in D.C.
An up or down vote for funding of Planned Parenthood on the senate floor. Again, no chance of becoming law, but it will get them on the record.
The reality is that polls were moving towards the dems favor, almost 40% of the country would have blamed the GOP for the shutdown. The left was winning the argument when it was framed that they were holding out over funding for Planned Parenthood. While the majority of the country is now Pro-life they still feel that abortion shouldn't not be illegal. They are personally against abortion. People did not want to see the military not getting paid over a very small amount of money in the federal budget that goes to organization that many people do believe offer more services than abortion.
The GOP has the wiggle room to allow many of the tea party members to vote nay and it still pass comfortably. Which will help Boehner keep the caucus together.
The press today coming from the left was full of vitriol with all the comments:
Thank you Speaker Boehner. You did your job and set the groundwork for the real battles; the debt ceiling and the 12 budget.
Read more here.
While the cuts were less than the right was hoping for, there is great deal to be happy about with this deal.
There will be an up or down vote on appealing Obamacare on the Senate floor. 23 dem senators are up for re-election next year. Some of those come from states that are very much against Obamacare. Clare McCaskill, Ben Nelson, and Joe Manchin just to name three. They will have to go on the record with a vote. During his campaign, Manchin repeatedly said he was against Obamacare on the federal level. He will now have to put his money where is mouth is. Missouri voted in the last election against mandates and McCaskill has since admitted that the bill needs to be improved. We all remember what an uproar Nelson caused with his vote for Obamacare. I am sure none of these people are happy to find out that they are going to have to make this vote. If they vote yes, they lose their base, if they vote no they lose the independents. It is a no win vote for them and great fundraising material for their opponents.
The additional IRS agents that were to be hired to implement Obamacare have been defunded. This is huge win for the right.
No public funds for abortion in D.C.
An up or down vote for funding of Planned Parenthood on the senate floor. Again, no chance of becoming law, but it will get them on the record.
The reality is that polls were moving towards the dems favor, almost 40% of the country would have blamed the GOP for the shutdown. The left was winning the argument when it was framed that they were holding out over funding for Planned Parenthood. While the majority of the country is now Pro-life they still feel that abortion shouldn't not be illegal. They are personally against abortion. People did not want to see the military not getting paid over a very small amount of money in the federal budget that goes to organization that many people do believe offer more services than abortion.
The GOP has the wiggle room to allow many of the tea party members to vote nay and it still pass comfortably. Which will help Boehner keep the caucus together.
The press today coming from the left was full of vitriol with all the comments:
“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus,” Slaughter said. “In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”
“There is actually a war on women,” the California Democrat said Thursday in Washington, taking aim at House Republicans’ efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and restrict access to abortions, among other measures.
We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.
“It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell!”
Thank you Speaker Boehner. You did your job and set the groundwork for the real battles; the debt ceiling and the 12 budget.
Read more here.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Career Day Sure Has Changed Since I was in School
Most elementary schools ask the parents to come in and talk to the students about their jobs. Not only does this give kids a chance to hear about things that is outside of their own worldview, it involves parents in the education of their children. Most children are very proud of their parents. In Henrico, Virginia such a day took place. One of the parents that came in is a plastic surgeon. As a Show and Tell prop he brought along breast implants and they were passed around to the kids feel.
This was done without any warning to the parents of the children in this classroom. This presentation was done for the older children, which means they are about 9 or 10. This is an age where they are finding out about their bodies and the changes that they will be going through in the next few years.
We live in society that puts way too much emphasis on our bodies and how we look as it is. Children are bombarded with issues such of these, and it is already difficult for parents to teach their kids it is what is on the inside that really matters. We also have Michelle Obama's lets move initiative that is highlighting the weight of our kids. There is struggle within our schools to deal with the problems of childhood obesity and the lack of exercise our kids are getting these days.
Most children are not mature enough to distinguish the difference between a healthy body image and being too thin. They are also not mature enough to understand the difference between looking a model they see on magazine covers and the reality of what human beings really look like. Not even the model themselves look as good in real life as they do on the cover of Vogue. This puts pressure on many young women to turn to plastic surgeons to find that beauty that they are seeking. It seems that parents are turning to plastic surgery as way to keep their kids from being bullied:
Needless to say that most parents were very unhappy when they found out about this display. Parents have the right to decide what their children are ready for and what they are not. Not all parents want their children exposed to an explanation of breast implants at the age of 9. Parents have a hard enough time to guide their children through the very difficult tween years where they are struggling to be like everyone else and have yet to realize that being yourself is much more important. Instead this program is planting the seed that your body image and your looks are the important factors to your self-esteem. It is way past time that the school systems start to realize that as parents we have the right to decide what our kids are and are not exposed to at young ages. Teachers and administrators do not have the right to make these choices for us.
This was done without any warning to the parents of the children in this classroom. This presentation was done for the older children, which means they are about 9 or 10. This is an age where they are finding out about their bodies and the changes that they will be going through in the next few years.
We live in society that puts way too much emphasis on our bodies and how we look as it is. Children are bombarded with issues such of these, and it is already difficult for parents to teach their kids it is what is on the inside that really matters. We also have Michelle Obama's lets move initiative that is highlighting the weight of our kids. There is struggle within our schools to deal with the problems of childhood obesity and the lack of exercise our kids are getting these days.
Most children are not mature enough to distinguish the difference between a healthy body image and being too thin. They are also not mature enough to understand the difference between looking a model they see on magazine covers and the reality of what human beings really look like. Not even the model themselves look as good in real life as they do on the cover of Vogue. This puts pressure on many young women to turn to plastic surgeons to find that beauty that they are seeking. It seems that parents are turning to plastic surgery as way to keep their kids from being bullied:
Statistics from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery show that the number of children and teens who get cosmetic surgery increased nearly 30 percent over the past decade. Experts believe an increase in bullying behavior is one reason for the upward trend.What exactly are we trying to teach children with displays like these? Can you imagine the giggles that came from these kids when they found out they were touching a fake breast? Small kids don't understand why breast implants may be necessary unless they have the unfortunate experience of a close family member that has had breast cancer. I am sure that there were many children who were very embarrassed by this display. While children are naturally curious, is this a curiosity that we should be enabling in 9 year olds?
Needless to say that most parents were very unhappy when they found out about this display. Parents have the right to decide what their children are ready for and what they are not. Not all parents want their children exposed to an explanation of breast implants at the age of 9. Parents have a hard enough time to guide their children through the very difficult tween years where they are struggling to be like everyone else and have yet to realize that being yourself is much more important. Instead this program is planting the seed that your body image and your looks are the important factors to your self-esteem. It is way past time that the school systems start to realize that as parents we have the right to decide what our kids are and are not exposed to at young ages. Teachers and administrators do not have the right to make these choices for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
