We have protested. We have written and/or called our Congress people. We have complained to our friends and tried to get others to pay attention.
Now is our chance to DO something!! There will be an election of delegates for the Continental Congress 2009 on October 10 all over the country. These delegates will meet in November to formulate and deliver to Congress a "petition for redress of grievances" per the 1st Amendment. This is the next, and a vital, step to recovering our Republic. If all we do is continue to protest and talk nothing will change. We will continue the slide into despotism. This is the time to consolidate our efforts. All the pinpricks of the many different groups with greivances will not get the monstrosity that our government has become to take notice. We must work together, even though we may not all agree on every particular.
Please help with this effort. Find your local polling place and vote for delegates. Voluteer to help at a polling place if you can. And if nothing else give a little money to help with the costs for the delegates who will be going.
Please don't let this opportunity go by!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Fascism is a wonderful thing!!
This couple had their children kidnapped by CPS because a WalMart employee reported them for suspected child pornography.
But before we become enraged at the employee or WalMart lets get angry at the legislators who made a law requiring that any possible pedophile activity be reported. It is so much easier for the state to keep tabs on the people if they enlist the help of the people to report on each other!
Now, I want real pedophiles prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but when the Law goes after innocent people like this it makes me doubt that anyone the state labels as a pedophile really is one. This kind of high-handedness is ridiculous. It is crazy that parents have to consider if the picture they are taking could in anyway be construed as sexual! I know I have taken nakie pics of my kids. I do not view them as sexually stimulating in any way! And millions of other parents have done the same. Use some common sense people!
And if this had been the only case of such abuse of government power I might not be so upset. But it has happened before in other states. A Texas couple had their children taken and were brought up on charges over one breastfeeding picture. I found this site interesting. They claim that 60% of of child molestation accusations are false!! I am sure there are many more examples of this kind of misuse of authority and false charges. I know personally of one case that I am fairly certain was false and yet the party involved was convicted and will likely never see her children again, not even in pictures!
And then there is guilt among the ranks of those that are supposed to uphold the law. The case of the former social services commissioner. And that is not the only one, there are plenty more! Here's a list.
I don't really know what the point of this was except to rant a little. :)
But before we become enraged at the employee or WalMart lets get angry at the legislators who made a law requiring that any possible pedophile activity be reported. It is so much easier for the state to keep tabs on the people if they enlist the help of the people to report on each other!
Now, I want real pedophiles prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but when the Law goes after innocent people like this it makes me doubt that anyone the state labels as a pedophile really is one. This kind of high-handedness is ridiculous. It is crazy that parents have to consider if the picture they are taking could in anyway be construed as sexual! I know I have taken nakie pics of my kids. I do not view them as sexually stimulating in any way! And millions of other parents have done the same. Use some common sense people!
And if this had been the only case of such abuse of government power I might not be so upset. But it has happened before in other states. A Texas couple had their children taken and were brought up on charges over one breastfeeding picture. I found this site interesting. They claim that 60% of of child molestation accusations are false!! I am sure there are many more examples of this kind of misuse of authority and false charges. I know personally of one case that I am fairly certain was false and yet the party involved was convicted and will likely never see her children again, not even in pictures!
And then there is guilt among the ranks of those that are supposed to uphold the law. The case of the former social services commissioner. And that is not the only one, there are plenty more! Here's a list.
I don't really know what the point of this was except to rant a little. :)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
And so it begins...again!
The yearly battle about whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". It is not even Halloween yet!
The Gap has said that they will not say "Merry Christmas" and the Religious Right already has their panties in a bunch. LOL
So why is this so important to the Religious Right? Why does it matter so much that companies want to be inclusive rather than exclusive?
Christmas did not begin as a Christian holiday. It's origins are pagan. Early American Christians actually did not observe Christmas because it was pagan and the Puritans thought it was just a show of fleshly lusts (the gifts, overeating, and other revelry).
I will acknowledge that most Christians these days accept Christmas as the celebration of Christ's birth, but will also add that much of the celebration has little to do with true Christian charity.
We must face the fact that there are many other holidays around Christmastime. Kwanzaa, Hannukkah, Winter Solstice, etc. And that America has a population that is mixed.
By making such a stink about this causes Christians to seem desperate and reactionary. Wish people "Merry Christmas" if you want, but don't be childish and get upset when a business makes a business decision (and I could go on about the ethics of a business using a religious holiday for profits). This griping sounds like my kids when one wants to play one game and the other doesn't and a fight ensues over something that DOES NOT MATTER in the grand scheme of things.
I posted about a similar topic last year.
Why do we let what the world does, or does not do, have such an impact? Why get so upset about something so trivial? How can saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" be construed as "War on Christmas"? Why would you want companies, whose sole aim is to profit from the holidays, to use Christmas, ostensibly Christ's birthday, for purely secular means? Why would you want Christ's birth associated with such frivolity?
I may add/change this later but for now, that's all I have! :D
The Gap has said that they will not say "Merry Christmas" and the Religious Right already has their panties in a bunch. LOL
So why is this so important to the Religious Right? Why does it matter so much that companies want to be inclusive rather than exclusive?
Christmas did not begin as a Christian holiday. It's origins are pagan. Early American Christians actually did not observe Christmas because it was pagan and the Puritans thought it was just a show of fleshly lusts (the gifts, overeating, and other revelry).
I will acknowledge that most Christians these days accept Christmas as the celebration of Christ's birth, but will also add that much of the celebration has little to do with true Christian charity.
We must face the fact that there are many other holidays around Christmastime. Kwanzaa, Hannukkah, Winter Solstice, etc. And that America has a population that is mixed.
By making such a stink about this causes Christians to seem desperate and reactionary. Wish people "Merry Christmas" if you want, but don't be childish and get upset when a business makes a business decision (and I could go on about the ethics of a business using a religious holiday for profits). This griping sounds like my kids when one wants to play one game and the other doesn't and a fight ensues over something that DOES NOT MATTER in the grand scheme of things.
I posted about a similar topic last year.
Why do we let what the world does, or does not do, have such an impact? Why get so upset about something so trivial? How can saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" be construed as "War on Christmas"? Why would you want companies, whose sole aim is to profit from the holidays, to use Christmas, ostensibly Christ's birthday, for purely secular means? Why would you want Christ's birth associated with such frivolity?
I may add/change this later but for now, that's all I have! :D
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Town Hall with Mac Thornberry
I went this morning early, 8:30 am. to a town hall. Of course we knew that the main subject would be health care reform. I didn't want to know about that since I am pretty sure I know where he stands already. Anyway, it was okay. Not many hard questions or even many original thoughts. There were a few amusing moments and a few infuriating ones and many eye roll moments.
There was one lady that had some good things to say about health care and I agree with her on some of that. She said that we don't need another government agency, but that we need to better use what we have. I like her idea of a sliding scale for premiums and co-pays with medicaid. That idea is very appealing to me. We cannot afford private ins. but I hate using medicaid because then I pay for nothing and others pay for it all. That doesn't sit well with my libertarian ideals.
I asked a couple questions. One was for someone else that couldn't be there. Not sure that person will be happy with the answer.
My own question was, "Considering your vote for the 'bailout' last year and your vote for the PATRIOT ACT, how can we trust that you will do as you vowed on taking office to uphold the Constitution? How can we trust that you will represent the people and that you will not vote for anything that violates the constitution?"
His response the bailout part was justification. Saying how the President and his advisors were saying that something MUST be done. and that the amended bill was more palatable. He didn't really answer my second question. But he did say he disagreed with me about the PATRIOT ACT. I asked, "So, you don't think that it infringes on our 4th amendment rights?" He replied, "No, not at all."
Well thank you Mr. Thornberry for making me even more sure that I was glad I didn't vote for you in the last election!!
There was one lady that had some good things to say about health care and I agree with her on some of that. She said that we don't need another government agency, but that we need to better use what we have. I like her idea of a sliding scale for premiums and co-pays with medicaid. That idea is very appealing to me. We cannot afford private ins. but I hate using medicaid because then I pay for nothing and others pay for it all. That doesn't sit well with my libertarian ideals.
I asked a couple questions. One was for someone else that couldn't be there. Not sure that person will be happy with the answer.
My own question was, "Considering your vote for the 'bailout' last year and your vote for the PATRIOT ACT, how can we trust that you will do as you vowed on taking office to uphold the Constitution? How can we trust that you will represent the people and that you will not vote for anything that violates the constitution?"
His response the bailout part was justification. Saying how the President and his advisors were saying that something MUST be done. and that the amended bill was more palatable. He didn't really answer my second question. But he did say he disagreed with me about the PATRIOT ACT. I asked, "So, you don't think that it infringes on our 4th amendment rights?" He replied, "No, not at all."
Well thank you Mr. Thornberry for making me even more sure that I was glad I didn't vote for you in the last election!!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
President Obama's health care speech
I read the transcript last night and then watched it this morning online.
As I watched I jotted down stuff as it came to mind during the speech. I will elaborate on what I wrote.
I was irritated by the long applause at the beginning, before he had even started speaking. Let's get to what we came to hear please! I counted 20+ standing ovations, most started by Pelosi, one by Biden, and another by someone else. I wish people would contain themselves and actually listen to what is being said instead of reacting to the tone of voice being used. It did seem to me that even the Pres. was getting tired of it by the end.
Obama claimed that the 'stimulus' had brought our nation 'back from the brink' of economic collapse. I really don't think that is the case, since much of that money hasn't been spent and what has hasn't been accounted for very well.
I contend that America is not wealthy. We have the appearance of being so, but being on the verge of bankruptcy is not my idea of being wealthy. I think every legislator in Washington needs to read Dave Ramsey's book, "The Total Money Makeover" and apply it to our nation's finances. We are $11 trillion + in debt, that is not wealthy!! We are enslaved to foreign lenders!!!
I do agree with the President that insurance companies are part of the problem. They will not cover those who need it most because it hurts the bottom line, but then they are businesses and they are in it to make money not for philanthropy.
Obama spoke about the rising costs of health care. I contend that much of that cost is because of insurance companies and also because of the regulation, licensure, and taxes and all associated costs.
Obama said that an average of $1000 of insurance premiums for those who have it, goes toward paying for those who don't have insurance. That will not change because of this plan. Those who have will still be paying for those who don't through the public option and subsidies. So people won't be saving, their money will just be spent a little differently.
Why would a transition to single-payer disrupt coverage? I don't think it would. And if that is what he would really like to have why not go for it?
I agree with the President's disapprobation of scare tactics and the fact that our polarization into ideological camps are wrong and do not get anything accomplished.
It is not strictly true that there will be no change in coverage. There is a commission in the bill that will decide what constitutes 'basic coverage' and to determine what coverage a company must provide.
I agree that we need to make it so that those with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage.
Not so sure about the routine procedure coverage. I see this as a way for practitioners to milk the system.
I like the idea of the exchange, but I worry about corruption and how practical it will really be.
I don't really like being required to have coverage. I really don't think auto insurance should be required either.
I wish that employers would not be required to carry it for employees. I think this may over tax some smaller businesses that don't qualify for the exemptions.
There are a few things that the right is insistent about that I've not been able to verify, namely 'death panels', coverage for illegals, funding for abortions, and no freedom of conscience. Those on the right are adamant that these things are true and yet I've found no citations to show me exactly where in the bill these things are. If there is a loophole for illegals, we need to get it closed up. Surely if these concerns are brought up and addressed there would be less opposition from the right.
Obama said that the public option would not cost taxpayers money, I wonder if he really believes that? How can it possibly not cost the taxpayers money? Where will the funds come from? Even if it is from 'savings' in other areas, it is still taxpayer money. All the money the government has is from the taxpayers!
I dislike his insistence that this MUST be done NOW and in the way that he wants. The president can suggest things to Congress but he cannot mandate. Article 2 section 3 of the US Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ..."
I mentioned above about my incredulity that this will not cost the taxpayer money, it most certainly will. Government programs ALWAYS cost more, much more, than projected.
Some of the deficits that he deplores were because of his votes in Congress. He did vote for spending for the Iraq war and for the 'bailout' bill.
How does the President propose to completely do away with fraud? Does he really believe that we will be able to eliminate it completely? How ridiculous!
I do agree that 'politicking' is a large part of the reason that we cannot come to an agreement on health care reform.
Why is it that so many politicians do not seem to understand that it is government getting involved that has gotten us here. The reckless spending and the manipulation of our economy and money by the FED (and yes I do realize that the FED is not really a government agency).
So there you have my thoughts on the President's speech on health care.
For those who oppose it for the reasons I mentioned above, if you have some proof that those things are true, PLEASE show me where in the bill it is! I really do want to believe the very worst of this piece of legislation!
As I watched I jotted down stuff as it came to mind during the speech. I will elaborate on what I wrote.
I was irritated by the long applause at the beginning, before he had even started speaking. Let's get to what we came to hear please! I counted 20+ standing ovations, most started by Pelosi, one by Biden, and another by someone else. I wish people would contain themselves and actually listen to what is being said instead of reacting to the tone of voice being used. It did seem to me that even the Pres. was getting tired of it by the end.
Obama claimed that the 'stimulus' had brought our nation 'back from the brink' of economic collapse. I really don't think that is the case, since much of that money hasn't been spent and what has hasn't been accounted for very well.
I contend that America is not wealthy. We have the appearance of being so, but being on the verge of bankruptcy is not my idea of being wealthy. I think every legislator in Washington needs to read Dave Ramsey's book, "The Total Money Makeover" and apply it to our nation's finances. We are $11 trillion + in debt, that is not wealthy!! We are enslaved to foreign lenders!!!
I do agree with the President that insurance companies are part of the problem. They will not cover those who need it most because it hurts the bottom line, but then they are businesses and they are in it to make money not for philanthropy.
Obama spoke about the rising costs of health care. I contend that much of that cost is because of insurance companies and also because of the regulation, licensure, and taxes and all associated costs.
Obama said that an average of $1000 of insurance premiums for those who have it, goes toward paying for those who don't have insurance. That will not change because of this plan. Those who have will still be paying for those who don't through the public option and subsidies. So people won't be saving, their money will just be spent a little differently.
Why would a transition to single-payer disrupt coverage? I don't think it would. And if that is what he would really like to have why not go for it?
I agree with the President's disapprobation of scare tactics and the fact that our polarization into ideological camps are wrong and do not get anything accomplished.
It is not strictly true that there will be no change in coverage. There is a commission in the bill that will decide what constitutes 'basic coverage' and to determine what coverage a company must provide.
I agree that we need to make it so that those with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage.
Not so sure about the routine procedure coverage. I see this as a way for practitioners to milk the system.
I like the idea of the exchange, but I worry about corruption and how practical it will really be.
I don't really like being required to have coverage. I really don't think auto insurance should be required either.
I wish that employers would not be required to carry it for employees. I think this may over tax some smaller businesses that don't qualify for the exemptions.
There are a few things that the right is insistent about that I've not been able to verify, namely 'death panels', coverage for illegals, funding for abortions, and no freedom of conscience. Those on the right are adamant that these things are true and yet I've found no citations to show me exactly where in the bill these things are. If there is a loophole for illegals, we need to get it closed up. Surely if these concerns are brought up and addressed there would be less opposition from the right.
Obama said that the public option would not cost taxpayers money, I wonder if he really believes that? How can it possibly not cost the taxpayers money? Where will the funds come from? Even if it is from 'savings' in other areas, it is still taxpayer money. All the money the government has is from the taxpayers!
I dislike his insistence that this MUST be done NOW and in the way that he wants. The president can suggest things to Congress but he cannot mandate. Article 2 section 3 of the US Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ..."
I mentioned above about my incredulity that this will not cost the taxpayer money, it most certainly will. Government programs ALWAYS cost more, much more, than projected.
Some of the deficits that he deplores were because of his votes in Congress. He did vote for spending for the Iraq war and for the 'bailout' bill.
How does the President propose to completely do away with fraud? Does he really believe that we will be able to eliminate it completely? How ridiculous!
I do agree that 'politicking' is a large part of the reason that we cannot come to an agreement on health care reform.
Why is it that so many politicians do not seem to understand that it is government getting involved that has gotten us here. The reckless spending and the manipulation of our economy and money by the FED (and yes I do realize that the FED is not really a government agency).
So there you have my thoughts on the President's speech on health care.
For those who oppose it for the reasons I mentioned above, if you have some proof that those things are true, PLEASE show me where in the bill it is! I really do want to believe the very worst of this piece of legislation!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Pres. Obama's speech tomorrow
I plan on having my kids watch it tomorrow. Linky to the live stream, in case you want to watch it too! I embeded the livestream on the bottom of this page also.
I read the text and there is nothing in it that I think is wrong. It is just your basic 'do your best' admonition.
We will of course discuss it after! ;)
I read the text and there is nothing in it that I think is wrong. It is just your basic 'do your best' admonition.
We will of course discuss it after! ;)
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Yard Sale today...
was successful....sort of. We made about $300 but still have lots of stuff left. Some will go to the consignment store and some will go to charity.
Hubby is off applying for a second job...not sure how I feel about that. We need the money, but we see him so little as it is...
Kyla and Emma will be leaving in just over a week to go stay with Mom and Dad for a few months. Things will be very different around here.
Hoping for a restful Sunday and a pleasant Labor Day.
Hubby is off applying for a second job...not sure how I feel about that. We need the money, but we see him so little as it is...
Kyla and Emma will be leaving in just over a week to go stay with Mom and Dad for a few months. Things will be very different around here.
Hoping for a restful Sunday and a pleasant Labor Day.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
OH NO!! THE MARK OF THE BEAST!!! RUN!!
Okay, maybe not. :P
So this little tidbit is going all over the internet.
Here is the actual text in the bill:
SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
12 (a) REGISTRY.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal
14 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is
15 amended—
16 (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-
17 section (h); and
18 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the
19 following:
20 ‘‘National Medical Device Registry
21 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national med-
22 ical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
23 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
24 outcomes data on each device that—
25 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and‘‘(B) is—
2 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
3 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
4 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
5 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
6 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
7 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
8 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi-
9 nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec-
10 retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
11 for—
12 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner con-
13 sistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
14 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
15 type, model, and serial number or other unique iden-
16 tifier;
17 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
18 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
19 for linking such data with the information included
20 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in-
21 cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
22 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
23 other provisions of this chapter; and
24 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
25 sources identified under paragraph (3);
As near as I can figure this is how the misunderstanding got started
"18 (B) by inserting after subsection" That little word "inserting" does not refer to inserting things into people but to inserting text in another part of the bill.
So relax, Obama isn't trying to give us all the mark of the beast quite yet. :D
ETA:
Okay, so I had someone bring to my attention what a Class II implantable device is funny that they were being talked about and tested way back in 2004 when our wonderful, godly president Bush was in office!
So this little tidbit is going all over the internet.
Here is the actual text in the bill:
SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
12 (a) REGISTRY.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal
14 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is
15 amended—
16 (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-
17 section (h); and
18 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the
19 following:
20 ‘‘National Medical Device Registry
21 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national med-
22 ical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
23 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
24 outcomes data on each device that—
25 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and‘‘(B) is—
2 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
3 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
4 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
5 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
6 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
7 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
8 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi-
9 nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec-
10 retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
11 for—
12 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner con-
13 sistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
14 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
15 type, model, and serial number or other unique iden-
16 tifier;
17 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
18 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
19 for linking such data with the information included
20 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in-
21 cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
22 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
23 other provisions of this chapter; and
24 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
25 sources identified under paragraph (3);
As near as I can figure this is how the misunderstanding got started
"18 (B) by inserting after subsection" That little word "inserting" does not refer to inserting things into people but to inserting text in another part of the bill.
So relax, Obama isn't trying to give us all the mark of the beast quite yet. :D
ETA:
Okay, so I had someone bring to my attention what a Class II implantable device is funny that they were being talked about and tested way back in 2004 when our wonderful, godly president Bush was in office!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
