Pratts Pub

In the video he says it is the second verse, but it is really the 4th. No worries, he does a very good job singing it!

Also below are all the lyrics for the Star Spangled banner. I found these at USA Flag Site.

The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics
By Francis Scott Key 1814

Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

[msnbc 37235675]

Oh my gosh. There are so many flaws to what Mr. Obama is saying here.

Just follow along with the video. My comments go right in line. How fun is this.

For quick reference as well, here is the LINK that you may have been hearing about discribing Mexico’s Immigration Laws.

Mexico Immigration Laws

1. AZ Law gives the possibility that people who are suspicious of being illegal that they may be harassed or arrested?

What exactly is he talking about? The law states NO RACIAL PROFILING. The law states that someone has to be stopped in one way or another for another offense. You can’t just be stopped and asked for your papers.

2. The fact that the Federal Government is the one ultimately charged with Immigration policy?

Where is that written. As I posted yesterday, it is no where in the constitution or in law that the Federal Government is the only body that can be responsible for immigration.

3. Can’t wait to see what the Justice Department is going to say about this. The Arizona law pretty much mirrors the Federal Law. What? Is the Justice Department going to find it unconstitutional? Can’t wait.

4. AZ law expresses frustration?

Do you think? Arizona plainly said that due to the lack of Federal help…they passed this. And it has been evident for years (even before Obama) that the Federal Government is scared (for some reason) to seriously crack down on this. This is the “amnesty” conversation always comes up. To scared to enforce the laws we have.

5. Working with the Mexican government on our immigration issues?

Are you kidding me. This is about America, not about Mexico. And what about Mexico’s immigration laws that are what?? 10 times more stick than the United States? And they seem to enforce them, unlike the United States?

Why aren’t we working with the Canadians as well? Or Cuba?

6. Flows or trade, tourists and economies interdependent?

What in the hell is he talking about. Once again he is attempting to pull the wool over the “stupid American’s” eyes. What do trade, tourism and economies have to do with illegal immigration into the United States? I have no idea and if they are somehow involved, they shouldn’t be.

Tourism is just that. You get a passport and you go be a tourist.

Trade? We have laws that dictate that.

Economies interdependent on…..illegal immigrants? How?

7. Make sure businesses are following the rules?

I agree. We should crack down on businesses that are enabling this. But let me think here. How do we determine if someone is eligible for employment? Well every job I have ever obtained I have had to provide a couple things that may include a drivers license, birth certificate, Social Security card and/or other items. All to prove who I was and that I was legal in this country. Even a credit report.

Isn’t that kind of like “providing your papers”. Isn’t that some kind of sin to Obama and liberals?

8. Those coming to this country illegally need to be held accountable by paying a fine, taxes, learn English, got to the back of the line but if they are following the rules there should be a path to become citizens.

WHAT? Pay a fine/tax. Learn English? WHAT? Follow the rules??? Mr Obama….ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL. They broke the law coming here ILLEGALLY. What in the HELL are you talking about?

This is what Obama wants to pass? Sure, come on….sneak into this country ILLEGALLY, then mind your p’s and q’s, pay a fine and some taxes, learn English and then SURE, we’ll make you a citizen.

I don’t call people names to often, but when it comes to Obama…..”bonehead Obama” always pops into my mind.

I just can’t grasp the whole “break the law getting here….behave and you can become a citizen” thing. Unbelievable to me.

9. He can get the support of MOST Democrats. But he doesn’t have 60 votes in the Senate.

So, ripping into Republican’s again. So if ALL Democrats aren’t on board, are you going to rip them to? What if 45 Dems’s and 14 Republican’s support your ludicrous idea? Is it still just the evil Republican’s fault?

(I HOPE TO GOD THE REPUBLICAN VOTE WOULD BE A BIG FAT ZERO)

10. You need help to get it done?

How about just enforcing our current laws? How about doing something serious to stop the flow of illegals over our border?

I’m sorry, why is new legislation needed? What’s wrong with the laws we have in place?

11. It’s his job to work with the Mexican government to get this done?

Why? This is America. Why would the Mexican government have ANYTHING to do with our nations immigration laws.

What about working with Canada, Cuba and others?

Am I repeating myself? Huh!

12. We can’t use force to prevent people from coming into the country?

We can’t? What does the Border Patrol do? Why can’t we use force to protect our border. Ok, I am confused again. Obama does that to me a lot.

Didn’t they start building a wall in California, Arizona or somewhere? Then it got abandoned? Isn’t that kind of using force? I am so sorry, I still don’t get it.

Someone please educate me.

DOWNLOAD Arizona’s New Immigration Law 1070 from www.azleg.gov.

OR READ IT HERE

I keep being amazed at how main stream TV media, radio and newspapers keep falsely reporting what is in the Arizona Immigration Bill.

I keep reading/hearing things in reports like “the new Arizona law which allows police to stop people if they suspect them of being illegal….”.

Hello, have you read the bill? Apparently people like Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, ASST Secretary Of State PJ Crowley, AG Eric Holder and others have NOT read the bill…..but yet they are against it.

ALL VIDEOS
Janet Napolitano Hasn’t Read It, But Against It
PJ Crowley Hasn’t Read It, But Against It
Eric Holder Hasn’t Read It, But Against It
(more…)

This Congressman (sorry I don’t know his name) was a YES vote on the bill before but is now a NO vote due to the abortion language in the bill.

He says that he believes there is still about 12 Democrats that previously voted YES are STILL going to vote NO if the language is changed.

He also states no matter what offer is presented to, no matter how the bill changes, is vote will be NO unless the abortion language is changed.

[foxnews 4113755]

Could someone please explain this math to me.

Never mind, it doesn’t matter how the math works out because once again Obama is lying. He will say what ever he wants and his supporting zombie crowd won’t think on their own and they will just yell, clap and support him.

3000%, really? I do really wonder how one of his number crunchers came up with that. And of course he says that with that 3000% (I can’t help but laughing just at typing 3000%…..let me collect myself here)……….that your employers will be able to give you a raise.

This is what I continually love about liberals. They can’t stop talking and that usually results in their foot ending up in their mouth. Wait, that would mean it was accident. And this was no accident.

Bill Maher along with most Liberal and Democrats honestly believe you are to stupid to take care of yourself, have your own thoughts or even understand the legislation that comes out of Washington.

Hell, why do they even let us vote?

According to Bill, while we are to stupid to understand the issues, what we want is someone who sticks their guns and doesn’t cave to other party.

WAIT! But aren’t the Democrats demonizing the Republicans for doing just that on healthcare and other issues?

Oh there is just tons of material to rip apart in this interview.

Thanks to the Midnight Trucking Radio Network

UNBELIEVABLE

If you think you can stand to listen to the whole clip go ahead.

The part he talks about stupid Americans starts at 10:00 even.

Is the Global Warming (Climate Change) revolution coming to a crashing end? Probably not despite all the evidence lately that scientist either don’t now what they are talking about or have just plain made up data.

And one of the amazing parts to the whole story is the die hard left is still defending with everything they have.

We have been hearing numerous stories lately of scandalous emails, scientist rebuking claims that they made years ago, claims being used to scare the world despite the fact that the person making the claim doesn’t know what they are talking about. Or how about scientist now coming out saying that there really hasn’t been Global Warming in about 15 years.

Much of the following is from THIS ARTICLE at timesonline.co.uk.

And this one – From the Register’s Opinion Page: What to say to a global warming advocate

And this one – Climategate U-turn as scientist at center of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

“We have been led to believe by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife.”

You know, the doom and gloom. The world is ending and human life as we know it is evil (especially oil greedy, green house gas emitting, evil Americans).

But, many scientist are now coming forward and saying….well….maybe not so much.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

Wait, I am confused. Isn’t that what we have all been told. The earth is heating up, it is caused by humans creating greenhouse gasses and we all must drive battery operated cars (I always wondered what we are suppose to do with all the batteries that will eventually pile up), have no heat in our houses and pay our the roof for electricity.

But temperature is not a good indicator. How are they going to spin this? I’m waiting.

One reasons they are doubting that temperature is a good indicator is because they are doubting the weather stations information that is being collected and the way it’s being collected for the last 150 years.

For instance, I read one article that claimed that at one point there were 4,000 or 5,000 weather stations around the world. But now there is only about 1500 and a lot of the ones that were closed down were in cold places like Siberia.

So, if those cold temperatures are no longer being entered….wouldn’t it seem like the global temperature was raising? Of course it would. How could that have been missed by someone?

It wasn’t missed. It was covered up. Think about how much money is in making people believe they are causing the end of the world. Don’t believe me, check Al Gore’s bank account.

But they also state there are other reasons the numbers could be wrong. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Unbelievable. I am sorry. I don’t think there is a scientist in the world that would think taking the temperature in a different place would equal a “constant”.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Wow….does that mean it is not caused by evil human greenhouse gasses?

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Uh-oh, another statement that is really going to tick off the left.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

What? You mean there is no way of telling if it is greenhouse gasses or not. This is a statement the the left will hang on. They will read like “he didn’t say greenhouse gasses weren’t causing it”.

But I remember learning in 3rd grade (?) that the earth goes through “cycles”. It gets hot, then it gets cold, then it warms up, then it cools down.

I have even read another article that says many scientist believe it was warmer during medieval times than it is right now. Now that really had to have sucked having to be suited in armor.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Exactly. BELIEVED. No is proving anything. The ol’ rope-a-dope. Scientist for years have been screaming “global warming….greenhouse gasses….climate change…man-made” but in truth…..THEY BELIEVE warmer temperatures are man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

Now, they are now saying that there really hasn’t been any Global Warming for 15 years, not since 1995. Of course that is even if their data prior to 1995 was correct.

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

Wait, were back to the cycles thing again. Oh but wait, it can be explained in those periods mentioned, but not for the current time period….yeah, ok.

Oh yeah….and no Global Warming in 15 years. What would Al Gore say?

I recommend reading all 3 articles (and more) that I linked to. Below I will put a couple of excepts from “What To Tell A Warmist”.

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

The “What To Say To A Warmist” article is a must read…..so head over there and read the whole thing.

In short. It is really unbelievable that they have been trying to dupe us into this Global Warming thing for years. I have never really believed in it. I have believed that earth may be warming up (which I believe has been proven not to be the case) but I was never sold on it being humans faults.

Imagine how big this Global Warming industry is. How much money is being spent and made because of it? How many jobs are due to Global Warming…meaning how many people are researching and making claims. It only benefits them to continue saying “yeah, yeah, that’s right…..global warming…yeah…the earth is getting hot…..oh yeah….it’s humans fault”. If they don’t say that…..well then they are out of a job.

How about Al Gore? Why won’t he debate about Global Warming? He is making millions off of Global Warming. Oh yeah, remember the center of the earth is millions of degrees hot as well…..yeah….ok.

If you follow my comments on the news articles I post you will know I am completely against the Republicans attending this so called Health Care Summit with Barack Obama.

(if you don’t follow my news headlines comments, you should start. Take a look at the home page or follow us on Facebook)

The Republicans are being set up pretty bad here in my opinion. And to a degree, depending on how you look at it, they are kind of between a rock and a hard place.

For starters if they attend this summit, they will not be allowed to debate the Democrats current health care bill. They will only be allowed to present their ideas to the President. My understanding is that this is how Obama wants it. Which makes sense on Obama’s part.

So the Republicans won’t be able to point out all the bad items of the Democrats current proposals.

Next, once they propose their ideas all the President is going to say is that those ideas won’t work. Basically all the Republicans are going to do is give the President ammunition to try, and I do stress TRY, and discredit the Republican ideas in public. He wills state something like “the Republicans ideas won’t do anything to lower costs or ensure everyone receives affordable health insurance”.

Mark my words on this.

And finally if they back out and basically protest by not going to the summit, then the President will cry fowl and tell all the American people how the Republicans are refusing to work with his administration and the Democrats.

Of coarse I think a lot if not most Americans will see through this at this point.

The only thing this “Health Care Summit” is being held for is for Obama to try and show he is willing to listen to ideas. Then of course he will have the right to bash those ideas while the Republican are not allowed to do the same during the summit.

In fact, according to politico.com the President is planning on walking into this summit with an agreement in hand between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a final Democratic bill

So what are the Republicans to gain? Nothing.

Now the Republicans say they are open to compromise if the Democrats are willing to tear up the House and Senate bills and start over.

The Democrats say that is not going to happen.

WHAT SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS DO?

I believe they should bail on the whole thing. They collectively or individually should hold press conferences, let the American people know the whole plan of the Presidents as far as not really listening to them.

Don’t spend the time talking about how bad the Presidents/Democrats plans are. Everyone already knows that.

Spend the time politely talking about how this Health Care Summit is a sham and they will not be a part of it.

They (Republicans) have NOTHING to gain by attending this summit.

“This is a clever tactic by the president to try to put the Republicans on the defensive,” said John Feehery, a Republican consultant and former congressional aide.

“Assuming the president is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?” said a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel from House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio and Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Once again, Republicans should steer clear of this “summit” and stick to their guns. Not fold. Not compromise. Stick to what they believe in.

The battle between President Obama and Las Vegas has heated up. Obama issued an apology to Harry Reid earlier this week after telling people “you don’t blow a bunch of cash in Las Vegas while trying to save for an education”.

Then he (Obama) turned around and repeated the same thing. Now the Governor of Nevada and the Mayor of Las Vegas have pretty much told Obama he is not welcome. The mayor went as far as to say that he will do everything possible to run Obama out of town. He even said that Obama must be “A Real Slow Learner”.

This has infuriated the people of Nevada and the law makers. This doesn’t get any better really.

Don’t know why, but I am finding some great humor in this whole story.

Wow, Obama is taking another big step in trying to keep the American people uninformed. This is really unbelievable.

Obama says for people to turn off their Fox News, MSNBC, the blogs and other news sources because people are sick of hearing it. Instead he wants you to go out and talk to the people.

WHAT?!?!

For starters I talk to plenty of people. Most of them are sick of Obama.

Second, if people were sick of hearing the politics, they would change the channel.

Third, it’s not necessarily the politics people are watching the news for. They are watching and zeroed in on it so they can keep informed of your latest antics to try and screw them and the country.

First he doesn’t want people going to Las Vegas which he got blasted for. Now he wants you turn off the news and blogs so that he can do what ever he wants with out you being informed.

This is an unbelievable, bold and arrogant statement. Once again, the American people are not smart enough to digest it.

Maybe I need some direction here. I don’t know. But I can not get my head wrapped around how giving businesses a tax break from hiring unemployed workers is going to help anything.

In fact, the Senate proposition will exempt companies from paying the employer’s share of Social Security payroll taxes for new workers hired this year, as long as those people had been unemployed at least 60 days.

Hold on. For starters this is only for workers hired this year.

Next, and I think this one is big. Are companies only going to accept applications based on individuals being unemployed for 60 days or more? Wouldn’t this be discrimination? Companies can’t hire (or deny employment of) people based on their religion, age, race…etc. But now they could turn down someone that has been unemployed for 45 days and instead hire someone that has been unemployed for 62 days.

I would have to imagine that there will lawsuits all over the place.

But back to the basic discussion of the tax credit. Here is my basic though – If companies are not hiring right now, then why would they for a little tax break.

Isn’t it pretty basic thinking. Jobs are not being created right now for a couple reasons. But let’s look at it in the most basic form.

When do companies hire? They hire when the demand for the product they are producing or the service the are providing goes up. If there is no demand, no matter what kind of break they get, they won’t be hiring.

If I make widgets and people want to stop buying my widgets then when that demand gets low enough I have to start letting people go. As the demand for those widgets rise again, I can start bringing back employees to meet the demand. And hopefully the demand for those widgets continues to grow so that I can expand my business.

If the demand for my widgets has flat lined and I am maintaining the number of employees that I have to serve that demand, why would I hire more people due to a little tax break?

It really makes no sense. Tax break or no tax break they are still out of a lot of money by having to pay that employee to work there. And the tax break is not going to cover all those expenses. NOR SHOULD THEY.

So, once again this seems to be backward thinking. Or at best, in my opinion, this is a way for Obama to work with Republicans to bring something forward. Nobody can really expect this to work, but instead it is a feel good thing that everyone can say “yeah, we did something to help, we are offering this tax break”.

What really needs to happen is the all companies, large and small, need huge tax breaks. With this saved money many things can happen. None of which should be mandated by the government.

Current Employees Given Raises – The more money people have in their pocket, the more they are going to spend. The more money people are spending, the better that is for the economy.

Able To Expand Some What – Maybe a company has been thinking of expanding but just doesn’t have the capital. More cash in the companies pocket, the more they can work with. And if they are thinking of expanding in some fashion, then that would equal more jobs. And now, this is where the proposed tax credit could become useful.

While I think this is a good thing to do, I just don’t see companies hiring people right now because they will get a tax credit. It is a good thing, but it a little to far down the stream to help right now. Once things get moving again, it may help. But not right now.

What do you think? Am I off base?

Should Welfare Recipients Be Required To Submit To Drug Testing?
COMMENT HERE

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

View Results

 Loading ...

I stumbled upon a Facebook group called “Making Drug Tests required to Get Welfare” (over 1.2 Million fans). I joined the group because I honestly believe that a lot of money could be saved by identifying people that are abusing the American taxpayers money on drugs or alcohol. Granted the alcohol deal would be harder to prove.

But here is my thinking on it. I realize that many (most) people are just trying to survive and take care of their families. They are not doing anything illegal and are only buying food and tying to pay bills while attempting to get back on their feet.

But I would love to see an study estimating the amount of people that are on welfare that have drug/alcohol problems. I bet it is staggering and I am sure there are studies out there on this.

If someone is in need and needs the assistance of the United States Taxpayers, then that should come with some conditions. For starters it should not be a lifetime enrollment. It should be a set relatively short amount of time. Or, you need to be proving that you are actively out job hunting.

Next, you need to submit to drug testing once or twice a month. Why? Because no matter what your feelings are on this subject, if someone is using/abusing drugs then I can guarantee that our tax dollars (welfare) is being used to purchase and use drugs.

If the government can give loans to corporate America (bailouts) and then impose strict legislation on those companies that took the bailout, then why can’t the do the same for welfare recipients?

Basically by going on welfare you are telling the tax payers that you need this bailout to help get you back on your feet. You are going to do everything possibly to get back on your feet as fast as possibly so that you are not burdening the tax payers and in the process getting back to being a tax payer yourself.

If I was in need of welfare I would not care if I had to pee in a cup when I picked up every single check. I wouldn’t care. I would just want the money so that I could take care of my family and get back on my feet as fast as possible.

And what should the penalty be for coming up hot in the drug test. Nothing. No jail (unless it is a probation violation), no probation, no court ordered drug program. Just no money. Here is a list of free treatment clinics….get yourself clean and then come back and get assistance.

In Michigan they tried implementing this back in 1999. The following information I found at StopTheDrugWar.org.

Michigan passed a welfare drug testing law in 1999 that required all Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants to provide urine samples to be considered eligible for assistance. But that program was shut down almost immediately by a restraining order. Three and a half years later, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling that the blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures and was thus unconstitutional.

“This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state’s limited resources,” said the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project head Graham Boyd at the time.

“Blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients” – It doesn’t matter. People on welfare are receiving tax payers money. It should just be a requirement in order to receive welfare. And once again. If you really needed the money to care for yourself or your family….would you care? Well I guess you would if you were doing drugs.

I refer back to the bailout example as well.

From a March 26, 2009 FoxNews ARTICLE

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents’ health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don’t get something for nothing.

“Nobody’s being forced into these assistance programs,” said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. “If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?”

What a great point. If employers can require drug testing (which I am all for) then why can’t the welfare program?

“It’s an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that’s least able to defend themselves,” said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

What a load that is! Defend themselves from what? Why is cutting tax payer dollars to drug addicts a bad thing?

“It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession,” said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that’s a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they’re worried they’ll be next.”

What does it matter if this is brought up in a recession or a peak of economic growth in the United States? I don’t get it. In fact, in the name of cutting some budget dollars here and there a recession is a perfect time to bring it up.

Once again, if it was me you could test me everyday of the week if that meant I was temporarily able to provide for my family while I got back on feet.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

I understand convicted felons or parolees in a lot of cases have lost a lot of their rights as citizens. But even with that in consideration how can it be OK to test them and not average Joe.

I could not find a projected “saved dollar amount” anywhere. But I have to imagine it would be pretty high. And of course I am not talking about unemployment benefits. I am only referring to benefits provided by the government or states for people that TEMPORARILY need assistance.

I have been looking into, reading about and watching opinions on this whole Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n case.

We have all been hearing about how in an unprecedented move Obama basically called out the Supreme Court during his State Of The Union speech.

Where Judge Alito then appeared to mouth the words “not true”. Alito has refused any comments since then as he probably should. His explanation of everything is right HERE in the courts opinion.

Here is what Obama had to say -

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Foreign Corporations –
The opinion states clearly that foreign contributions are not allowed. Plain and simple.

My Opinion
Who cares? Do people really think that corporations, unions and what ever other organizations have NOT been funding candidates or parties all along?

In it’s simplest form this simply means that your local Mom and Pop store can place an advertisement in favor of a certain candidate. Or that GM could run an ad in favor of Obama’s re-election.

My understanding is that they can not directly contribute to a campaign.

So what is the big deal. Can someone please answer that for me?

At least now we may have some transparency. I have no doubts that corporations and unions will still backdoor money to candidates one way or another. But how many people think that Pepsi, Ford, GM, Boeing, Target, Wal-Mart or any other company is going to come out with ads favoring a certain politician.

Now the Liberals are the most upset by this decision and in my mind at least that is where we are going to see the most ads coming from. Unions for example. You can bet you will see unions advertising for a specific candidate……hmmm….wonder which party/candidate they will endorse?

I would love to see Home Depot come out with a political add. Who would they endorse? How about your local small business association?

Rewind to what Obama had to say again –

American elections……They should be decided by the American people….

How are ads put out by corporations or unions going to make up people’s minds? What, American’s aren’t smart enough to make up their own minds? We are just going to follow what our favorite car company, home improvement center, airline, fast food joint or food supercenter has to say?

“Duh…I’m average Joe. Taco bell says to vote for XXXX, so that’s what I’m doing”.

What say you?

Did you think President Obama seemed like he was truely connected or getting reconnected to the American people during his speech last night?

Personally I think he delivered a pile of….. Now, he is a good speaker and he made it sound great. But bringing up things like health care and how he wants to get it done indicates that he is still out of touch with most American’s.

High speed rails? 8 Billion to develop? Amtrak is a great case why we don’t need high speed rails. If the American people wanted high speed rails AND it could make money, then the private sector would have done this a long time ago. All this will be is another tax payer funded failure like Amtrak.

And as far as my opinion goes, the list goes on. But what do you think? Think he succeeded at reconnecting?

Tax cuts don’t work? We have been doing the same ol’ same ol’ for years now. Now it’s time to try something different. Actually, President Bush’s tax cuts DID work. That is until he and the Republican Congress left the Conservative reservation and started spending like Liberals.

Tax breaks and credits to small businesses but not for big business. Specifically he named oil companies and others. So, if it will work for small business why won’t it work for large business? But instead he said that with out dire economic state we must collected all the taxes we possibly can the rich.

He brought up the Supreme Courts recent ruling on Campaign Finance. Basically scolding the Supreme Court. But, polls have indicated that most Americans agree with the Supreme Court.

The list really, really goes on and on.

What Say You?

 Loading ...