
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Listening tour, come on!

We Are Not Mad Conservatives, We are Disullusioned People

by Carmen Grant
Contrary to popular belief, the Tea Party Movement is not a conservative agenda movement. It is a movement against increased taxation and wasteful spending. There are many democrats that voted for Obama and support Pelosi who are equally as disgusted with the increase in spending and increase in taxation on the wealthy that is unfair. Perhaps if the government would elaborate on HOW spending more can make more money, then perhaps the feuds would end. I wish I could spend more to get out of debt. Sounds fun.
Instead the White House is leaving their own followers in the dark and the only thing left for them to think is "maybe we should have voted for Ron Paul?" That would have been historical too.
Now before I get backlash for being anti-historical, anti-Obama, anti-government and anti-family (yes CNN, I'm talking to you), let me relay a message from a loyal reader. He is a long time San Francisco resident, Pelosi supporter and Obama voter. He admitted he doesn't like what the Democrats are doing. For the first time in 30 years he decided to take a strong political stand by taking up a sign and joining the over 550,000 people that rallied on tax-day. After a long day of exercising his American rite, he came home and saw Pelosi's opinion of his efforts. She belittled the protesters, said they were being controlled by high power corporations, and were "astroturf" activists. A hard slap in the face for anyone who favored her and her fellow Democrats.
Here is what my reader professed in a letter to Pelosi:
"I found her words not only insulting and dismissive but also disheartening and discouraging. If this is not true grassroots I guess I don't know what is. For her to not understand this it means one of two things. Either she has not taken the time to take a closer look at what we are doing or she does know better and ridicules our process as it better fits her agenda. I find both of these to be disturbing."
I don't think anyone got the memo that we're not allowed to protest the Democratic agenda. Apparently we have to agree and adore the intentions of the Democrats and not criticize the results of their policies. Love the intention people, the intention.
Read Any Good Law Lately?
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ILN, 4/19/30 G.K. Chesterton
Read the fine print. Never sign anything without reading the number 4 font legalese at the bottom of every legal document. This is what got so many homeowners in trouble; they failed to read the fine print before signing a note their paychecks couldn't keep up with down the road.
But it is not just the mistake made by those on "Main Street" as Obama so cheerfully calls them, but those ruling on "E Capitol St NE & 1st St NE," on behalf of the American citizens who should be reading the fine print before they sign anything into law. Any business plan worth its salt is never rushed into, but thoroughly researched, analyzed, professional advice sought, and legally examined prior to a signature. It is said the foolish man begins to build without counting the cost, yet the very men and women who attempt to run our government have fallen prey to the same blind mistake thousands of displaced homeowners have faced.
The Congress has panicked, they have not done their due diligence, they have signed their John Hancocks to legally binding contracts that affect the lives of Main Street, Wall Street, and every dirt road in America. Don't do as they do, nor do as they say, for those who have signed legislation into law without adequately reading, let alone researching, the full letter of the law, which their signatures whole heartedly declare support for, do so in ignorance, not in the good faith of their constituents.
Terry Neece of the NCPA stated in an interview with Our Blook, "There is little to praise in this $787 billion stimulus bill. The President signed a colossal bill that virtually no one read, which relies on out-of-date economic theories to stimulate the economy." No one read the fine print and no one did the homework. According to Neece, the economic theories that Congress is operating with in order to write this legislation is "obsolete."
The rush to judgment, on a rush job, that stimulates a rush to panic should cause the governing body to rush and reconsider their ways and means. The ire felt due to bonus pay for AIG, on the backs of American taxpayers, is the fault of those who penned their names without doing their due diligence. So instead of taking responsibility, they pass the buck, or rather steal the buck back from the very ones they mistakenly gave the money to in the first place. It seems to me that our representative body would do well to give back the pork and beans and the bonuses they gave themselves and their pet projects when they signed this stimulus legislation.
The Magna Carta stated that the king was not above the law and even he must obey it. Our founding documents are largely based on this philosophy and yet I wonder if the Senators, the Congressmen, and the President have ever read and given credence to the values found in this most important legal document. I find it hard to believe that they have read it, let alone practice it. They live and rule as if they are above the law of the land and they punish the peasants and wealthy landowners for questioning.
Monday, May 11, 2009
9 states have voted to kill the electoral college

By Carmen Grant
Washington State is front and center on ridding the U.S. of the Electoral College and pushing for electing the president by National Popular Vote (NPV). Olympia legislators passed Senate Bill 5599 which made Washington the 9th state in the U.S. ready to kill the Electoral College. Ironically the NPV law only needs 270 out of the 538 electoral votes to be enacted into law. The vote is currently at 60 or 23%.
Why we have an electoral college
The Founding Fathers decided against NPV because it would not represent the smaller states. Candidates could ignore rural areas, and focus on densely populated regions where they could get more votes. The Electoral College (EC) is meant for candidates to work harder to get their votes. Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on the state's population, determined by the U.S. Census. Washington State has eleven votes, less populated states, like Alaska and Delaware, only have three while California has the most electoral votes at 55. It is a winner-takes-all system, meaning when an absolute majority is met, then the candidate gets all the electoral votes from the state.
A National Popular Vote doesn't just mean a 51/49 split. It means whoever gets the majority wins. A candidate could very well win with a mere 20% approval. It is more complex than people understand. It might kill the two-party system that has carried elections throughout history. Currently, each party has to agree on a candidate who can appeal to the greatest number of citizens to gain a majority of votes of the Electoral College.
Paul Greenberg argues that this shift in electoral reform makes us more like the French. There were thirteen candidates in 2003, and barely any of them could carry a majority. The result was to have a second round of voting that put a right wing radical against an unpopular conservative. Ridding the U.S. of the EC would water down the quality of candidates and open the door for right and left wing radicals to be legitimate presidential contenders. It would segregate states, regions, and people.
By ridding the U.S. of the electoral college, we are watering down the quality of our candidates and making it so that any schmuck can run for office. Unfortunately, my state voted to kill the EC, despite huge groups of protesters whose voices were never heard. Shows a lot about the representative democracy we have in Washington State.Obama's Healthcare Express
The train wreck that is socialized medicine is speeding towards us and it seems that there is little being done to stop it. It seems Democrats plan to use budget reconciliation, a procedure normally used to reduce spending, to ram healthcare through without meaningful debate. Clinton was tempted to use budget reconciliation to pass Hillarycare, but the story is that Sen. Byrd enlightened him to the fact that it would not be a proper use of the process. Clinton agreed. Hillarycare was also killed, in part, by the strong opposition of the healthcare industry. Doctors, hospitals, insurers voiced their dissent.
Where is the dissent this time? It seems that the clamor for "free" healthcare is drowning out the sane voices that are pointing out the pending disaster. Obama paints his plan as a public alternative for those not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers, and that if you are happy with your current insurance you can keep it. But, when the government competes against the private sector, it will most likely win. Not because it's better, but because government can run at a deficit.
Private insurers must be profitable or they go out of business. All government has to do is keep providing enough coverage to keep people happy until the private insurers tank and then they can start rationing and dictating your healthcare because then there will be no alternative.
Governments don't go out of business, they just provide shoddy service and tax you more for it. I regularly hear people comment that they would pay more taxes if it would provide universal healthcare in this country. Really? How much more? Will 50% of your income be too much? 70%? Every government program runs inefficiently and costs more and more over time. How many years will we have to live with this mistake before we realize that it's a failure everywhere it's been tried?
Firearms Freedom Act may be coming to a state near you

By Kimberly Moore
Who could have imagined that a draft request received on October 27, 2008 proposing an act to exempt from federal regulation the right to manufacture commercially or privately a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition would actually pass? While tea parties were occuring all over the country on April 15, 2009, the Governor of Montana signed into law the Firearms Freedom Act. At the time of this writing, there has been little discussion of this in the mainstream media, but soon, they (the media) will be forced to report this because states such as Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Wyoming are following suit with similar acts in their state legislatures. As a matter of fact, Tennessee has started the voting process on their own Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act just this week.
I'm curious why the media, including the cable news channel networks, are not discussing this? This act is a direct challenge against federal law and will probably go to the Supreme Court. However, if that happens, Montana may threaten to secede from the Union. Texas has threatened this as well. If patriots band together, especially from the states that are proposing Firearms Freedom Acts, the Feds may have their hands tied and have no choice but to allow the states these freedoms. "Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889." Legislative Services Division, Montana
This legislation should be a wake up call to the federal government that the American people will not tolerate any infringement to their 2nd Amendment rights nor their states rights regarding firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The more states pass similar bills into law, the more difficult it will be for the federal government to enforce any future consideration of imposing stricter gun laws within state territories.
So, instead of 'Made in USA', we will start seeing 'Made in Montana' or 'Made in Arkansas' or 'Made in Wyoming' or 'Made in (fill in your state's name)'.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Abstinence Message

Bristol Palin is getting a lot of flack right now for speaking out in favor of abstinence. As a teen mother of a baby boy she gave birth to in December, Bristol has taken to the airwaves to let teens know that the best way to prevent teen pregnancy is abstinence. This brings the critics out of the woodwork. She is a hypocrite according to many. Especially those who do not believe that abstinence is a practical choice for young women.
If a teen traveled around the country talking to their peers about the dangers of underage drinking because they did it and killed someone while driving, does that make them a hypocrite, or one who has experience with a very serious issue? Is the former teen drug abuser who gives lectures to other teens about the dangers that face them if they abuse drugs a hypocrite? They are hailed, as they should be, as strong individuals who are telling the world about their heartache and hopefully will help others make better decisions in life. Of course, with Bristol Palin, we are only talking about sex. Not that big a deal, right? Teens are going to do it anyway, so the important thing is to teach them how to protect themselves.
As a mother of young children who are going to eventually face this issue and make choices for themselves, I want them to hear from someone with experience on it. Kids these days are extremely concerned about how they look, the brand of clothing they wear, and what kind of shoes they wear. Should they not be just as or more concerned about when they have sex? I applaud Bristol Palin for her message and know that it is probably very difficult for someone so young to take on the message and the criticism. Giving birth and taking care of a baby is not glamorous or something to be taken lightly and neither is having an abortion. I think it is extremely important for our young girls to know everything about the consequences of sexual activity. What better way than a real person, your own age, speaking from experience.
It doesn't surprise me that the father of Bristol's baby, Levi Johnston, responded that abstinence is "not realistic." Any teenage girl who has had a boyfriend understands the pressure that is put on her to engage in sexual activity as well as the casual reference to it in the world everyday. I hope that more young girls stand up to the pressure of teen sex and say no to it. I would like them to realize that abstinence is a decision to be proud of and that becoming sexually active at an early age is not a step to maturity. Having the courage and knowledge to say no, in the face of pressure, is.
