So here you are, a single woman with six children (some of them special-needs children), and you have no employment, no husband, and you live with your parents.
What would most people do given this situation?
Well, it's a safe bet that most would not think, "I think I'll have in vitro fertilization to have even MORE children..."
But that's exactly what Nadya Suleman, the new mother of octuplets, decided to do. One can only guess what went on in her mind when she made that decision because it is completely counter to what just about everyone else would do.
There's been talk that she now is looking for donations to help her with her brood, similar to other families in the past who had famous multiple-births. It makes you wonder if that was the plan all along. Another question is how much public assistance becomes available to an individual in her situation, especially since she was recently spotted purchasing expensive cosmetics, she has a new Public Relations person... "Thing's that make ya go, 'Hmmm....' But all of the blame doesn't lay there.
There was the doctor who performed the procedure. A number of pundits have said that he is not without blame in all of this. Some experts have said that he should have investigated Ms. Suleman's economic viability before agreeing to perform the procedure.
Looks like there's some moral bankruptcy going on in both camps. And the children will bear the brunt of a lot of this for years to come. It's somewhat likely that public assistance will play a part in raising the kids. The public, meaning you and me.
You know, there's a saying that "It takes a village to raise a child." In most cases that might be ok. But the tune changes when the parent is intentionally irresponsible to force the issue on the village, and by having a total of 14 children that's taking it to the extreme. But the kids are here now and prospects for their economic well-being look to be in severe jeopardy without intervention from outside the family. It's not fair to put the children in economic peril because of the actions of their mother and their doctor. So what are the villagers to do?
There's always adoption... What do you think?
Sunday 22 February 2009
Saturday 21 February 2009
Can I Get My Bailout Please?
You know things are bad when people are joking about getting their own personal bailout.
The sad part is that humor is part of a larger issue: apathy. People have felt for so long that "The government is going to do whatever it wants, so there's nothing I can do." Guess what? That's exactly what they want you to believe! This attitude actually gives them license to act however they choose, and they'll always tell you that they're acting on your behalf and in your best interest. Whew, that was close. My politician said he's working hard for me. Gee, I'll sleep well tonight.
If they're acting in your best interest, then tell me, how are you feeling about Social Security? Most people in their 30's and 40's agree that there won't be any when they reach retirement age, or at least, very little. Yet you pay into the system with every paycheck. Is that in your best interest? Is it in your interest that the person charged with fixing it doesn't have to worry about Social Security because they will get their own lifetime pension (paid for by you, of course) whether Social Security implodes or not? Who is charged with fixing all this? The person you elected, that's who! And if you didn't vote, shame on you, and you better not complain.
So how is your elected official doing? Are you even watching? You see, "a government of the people, BY the people and for the people," is an interactive process. I'm sorry, but it requires participation on your part. It's not like voting for your favorite on American Idol. Our elected officials determine what our lives will be like. You have to do more than hope they do a good job. They are public servants, they should serve. Democrat or Republican. If you went to a restaraunt and your waiter provided you with lousy service, would you give them a handsome tip anyway? I would hope not. When you tip your waiter, you're providing them with instant feedback as to their level of performance (or lack thereof, as the case may be). This is actually a good thing! Repeated poor performance which results in lousy tips will either motivate them to do a better job for ALL of their patrons, or may motivate them to find employment more suitable to them. A win-win for them and for their patrons.
Same goes for politics. You may be surprised to know that nearly 20 States are somewhere in the process of intiating "States Rights" legislation to protect themselves from the federal government with respect to the new legislation coming through (that would be "the stimulus package"). There is even talk about States seceding from the Union entirely if the government continues on its current path. Sound extreme? Maybe. Maybe not........
The 'Troubled Asset Relief Program' (TARP for short, and now 'TARP-1' because there will most certainly be another one), was initiated by President George W. Bush. This was taxpayer money given to financial institutions with very few strings attached. The money was to help offset the losses of the "toxic" assets (i.e. bad loans) that banks had on their books, thus preventing the banks from "running scared" and hoarding all their money and not lending to new, qualified borrowers. In essence, it was an attempt to "keep the credit market flowing." Guess what? Banks took the TARP money, and they still aren't lending. No matter how you look at it, taxpayer money was spent to keep the credit flowing and the program failed.
President Obama has now put out the Stimulus Plan. More taxpayer money, nearly 3-times that of the Bush administration to help the ailing economy. Many say it's filled with pork and other non-stimulative spending. That's probably true.
Is it any wonder then, that the States are looking at "opting out" of this arrangement? Here's a bit of advice, take it or leave it: If the States are concerned that their (and your) rights are being trampled on (by a Republican administration and now by a Democrat administration), it may be time for you to wake up and smell the coffee yourself.
Get off your fanny. YOU are the government, and if you don't like what your representative is doing, FIRE THEM. Your apathy and lack of information is killing you.
Here's a parting thought. There's an old question that asks, "How do you boil a frog?" The answer, "Slowly." If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of cold water then slowly turn up the heat, he'll be comfortable the whole time, until he's cooked. Well, you can't get out of the pot, but you can manage the folks that control the heat. Savvy?
The sad part is that humor is part of a larger issue: apathy. People have felt for so long that "The government is going to do whatever it wants, so there's nothing I can do." Guess what? That's exactly what they want you to believe! This attitude actually gives them license to act however they choose, and they'll always tell you that they're acting on your behalf and in your best interest. Whew, that was close. My politician said he's working hard for me. Gee, I'll sleep well tonight.
If they're acting in your best interest, then tell me, how are you feeling about Social Security? Most people in their 30's and 40's agree that there won't be any when they reach retirement age, or at least, very little. Yet you pay into the system with every paycheck. Is that in your best interest? Is it in your interest that the person charged with fixing it doesn't have to worry about Social Security because they will get their own lifetime pension (paid for by you, of course) whether Social Security implodes or not? Who is charged with fixing all this? The person you elected, that's who! And if you didn't vote, shame on you, and you better not complain.
So how is your elected official doing? Are you even watching? You see, "a government of the people, BY the people and for the people," is an interactive process. I'm sorry, but it requires participation on your part. It's not like voting for your favorite on American Idol. Our elected officials determine what our lives will be like. You have to do more than hope they do a good job. They are public servants, they should serve. Democrat or Republican. If you went to a restaraunt and your waiter provided you with lousy service, would you give them a handsome tip anyway? I would hope not. When you tip your waiter, you're providing them with instant feedback as to their level of performance (or lack thereof, as the case may be). This is actually a good thing! Repeated poor performance which results in lousy tips will either motivate them to do a better job for ALL of their patrons, or may motivate them to find employment more suitable to them. A win-win for them and for their patrons.
Same goes for politics. You may be surprised to know that nearly 20 States are somewhere in the process of intiating "States Rights" legislation to protect themselves from the federal government with respect to the new legislation coming through (that would be "the stimulus package"). There is even talk about States seceding from the Union entirely if the government continues on its current path. Sound extreme? Maybe. Maybe not........
The 'Troubled Asset Relief Program' (TARP for short, and now 'TARP-1' because there will most certainly be another one), was initiated by President George W. Bush. This was taxpayer money given to financial institutions with very few strings attached. The money was to help offset the losses of the "toxic" assets (i.e. bad loans) that banks had on their books, thus preventing the banks from "running scared" and hoarding all their money and not lending to new, qualified borrowers. In essence, it was an attempt to "keep the credit market flowing." Guess what? Banks took the TARP money, and they still aren't lending. No matter how you look at it, taxpayer money was spent to keep the credit flowing and the program failed.
President Obama has now put out the Stimulus Plan. More taxpayer money, nearly 3-times that of the Bush administration to help the ailing economy. Many say it's filled with pork and other non-stimulative spending. That's probably true.
Is it any wonder then, that the States are looking at "opting out" of this arrangement? Here's a bit of advice, take it or leave it: If the States are concerned that their (and your) rights are being trampled on (by a Republican administration and now by a Democrat administration), it may be time for you to wake up and smell the coffee yourself.
Get off your fanny. YOU are the government, and if you don't like what your representative is doing, FIRE THEM. Your apathy and lack of information is killing you.
Here's a parting thought. There's an old question that asks, "How do you boil a frog?" The answer, "Slowly." If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of cold water then slowly turn up the heat, he'll be comfortable the whole time, until he's cooked. Well, you can't get out of the pot, but you can manage the folks that control the heat. Savvy?
Friday 20 February 2009
THE LOVE HAS COME!!!
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
20 States have followed suite so far and are adopting like measures towards their freedom. The wording may look familiar due to it being the wording of one T Jefferson and his associates, some the founding fathers.
REFERENCE TITLE: sovereignty; tenth amendment.
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
First Regular Session
2009
HCR 2024
Introduced by
Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper
A concurrent RESOLUTION
claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.
20 States have followed suite so far and are adopting like measures towards their freedom. The wording may look familiar due to it being the wording of one T Jefferson and his associates, some the founding fathers.
Time Will Tell
Dan Vinson- my friend and political mind writes the following:
Two of the biggest enemies to a free society are a) lack of information and b) apathy.
Every American should go to YouTube and view the video of Barney Frank (D Mass.) on his comments regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans approached Congress YEARS AGO recommending more oversight on these two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE's) stating they were afraid that mismanagement could cause an economic tsunami of terrible proportions.
Barney Frank (and other Democrats) poopoo'd the advice saying (paraphrased) "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they're fundamentally sound. And even if they do go belly up the taxpayer isn't going to bail them out."
Fast Forward a few years: They were NOT fundamentally sound, they were cooking the books, and American taxpayers HAVE bailed them out.
So Barney, strike one, strike two, strike three, YOU'RE OUT. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet most Americans don't know these facts. And what's sadder still, is that most that do know, don't care. There is a general feeling that 'government is going to do what they want and there's nothing we can do about it.' Wrong again, honey.
As was said by George W. Bush, there are ramifications to elections. NOT just the Presidency but Congress as well. People got elected and this is what they've done.
People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for the choices they've made, including they choices they make at the polls.
MUCH of the proposed spending that is going to take place as part of this new "stimulus" sham, er, I mean 'plan,' won't take effect for two years. Guess what? There'll be Congressional elections before then. We can vote for people who will REPEAL these parts of the 'plan.' If we don't, we are saddling our children and our children's children with the biggest welfare payment in the history of mankind.
The question is, do you have the intelligence, the guts, and the will to do it. Time will tell.
Two of the biggest enemies to a free society are a) lack of information and b) apathy.
Every American should go to YouTube and view the video of Barney Frank (D Mass.) on his comments regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans approached Congress YEARS AGO recommending more oversight on these two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE's) stating they were afraid that mismanagement could cause an economic tsunami of terrible proportions.
Barney Frank (and other Democrats) poopoo'd the advice saying (paraphrased) "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they're fundamentally sound. And even if they do go belly up the taxpayer isn't going to bail them out."
Fast Forward a few years: They were NOT fundamentally sound, they were cooking the books, and American taxpayers HAVE bailed them out.
So Barney, strike one, strike two, strike three, YOU'RE OUT. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet most Americans don't know these facts. And what's sadder still, is that most that do know, don't care. There is a general feeling that 'government is going to do what they want and there's nothing we can do about it.' Wrong again, honey.
As was said by George W. Bush, there are ramifications to elections. NOT just the Presidency but Congress as well. People got elected and this is what they've done.
People need to take PERSONAL responsibility for the choices they've made, including they choices they make at the polls.
MUCH of the proposed spending that is going to take place as part of this new "stimulus" sham, er, I mean 'plan,' won't take effect for two years. Guess what? There'll be Congressional elections before then. We can vote for people who will REPEAL these parts of the 'plan.' If we don't, we are saddling our children and our children's children with the biggest welfare payment in the history of mankind.
The question is, do you have the intelligence, the guts, and the will to do it. Time will tell.
Thursday 12 February 2009
Wednesday 4 February 2009
To protect us from them.
So I watched a video that has come to popularity recently on youtube (posted here), and I have to say that I love it. I love how she is able to make her point so blatantly. What really strikes me is the way the politicians are listening, you ahve the cut to one where he is talking to someone next to him, then on to liberal Chuckie Schumer who seems like he is only listening because he has to, he seems to already have had his mind made up. We know that the Brady bill passed so maybe that congressman had. I know I am not the most knowledgeable about who is who in this video or as to what exactly was going on at this time in the hearing, so my idea on it is all.
So after watching that it made me think about some things. I have some statistics on gun control from all over the world. I will post those, they were written by a reporter in Phillidelphia:
A LITTLE GUN TRUE HISTORY
I Thought you might appreciate this . .
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1 953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Chris tians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
http://www.troccohepp.com/PDFs/Gun_Control_Figures.pdf
Gun Control Has Proven Record Of Effectiveness Asheville Tribune ...
So after watching that it made me think about some things. I have some statistics on gun control from all over the world. I will post those, they were written by a reporter in Phillidelphia:
A LITTLE GUN TRUE HISTORY
I Thought you might appreciate this . .
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1 953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Chris tians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)