A Marshall University Professor Said That You Have to EARN Your Second Amendment Right to Own and Carry.

That would be Chris White who is against what this W. Virginia bill would allow (reformatted, emphasis mine) this restoration of a specific Right in a certain location and whose view can be seen as “Safetyism trumps EVERYTHING!” (er, I’ve heard something like this before Chris Sununu, can you help me out on this): A … Read more

Eco-Socialism

DISQUS Doodlings – “Water is a Human Right?”

Just so many topics covered here in the TreeHugger post “Good News for the Rich: Their Fancy Showers Can Waste More Water“. Just another reminder that the “world’s largest site for sustainability issues” is rapidly dropping the “sustainability” mask and replacing it with the Eco-Socialist (heavy emphasis on the Socialist bit) mask.

Read more

STEM Majors

Universities are Labeling Humanities Majors as STEM Majors So Immigrant Students Can Stay in the US Longer

Many American universities are expanding the scope of their STEM offerings. Sounds like good news, right? But then again you probably think STEM means: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. That would be wrong.

Read more

Paid Rights?

So, YOUR Right needs to be paid by others?

Yeah….no. A perfect example of the Left trying to redefine the language by affirmation, slipshod usage, and most people not challenging the redefinition because of poor education.  “I have a right to this!” and “I have a right to that!” is common place in everyday parlance. And it’s wrong. Second Amendment / Article 2-A enumerates … Read more

Cindy Rosenwald

Senator Cindy Rosenwald, does that mean that the State will pay for me to exercise MY Rights, too?

Alternative title: Democrats: Rights, Entitlements – what’s the difference? Democrats don’t want you to think about differences. There are BIG differences and Grokster Beth, over on the Nashua Politics Page, made a challenge over this statement made by NH State Senator Cindy Rosenwald in this specific topic of, once again, Democrats deliberately maldefining common words … Read more

We are in Silly Season

The Democratic presidential candidates just keep selling new government programs. Sure it is lying season on the campaign trail. But at some point, somebody has to ask: How are you going to pay for that?

Read more

BlogLine of the Day – encapsulating the essence of minimum wage versus the Left’s “living wage”

Our readers are smart – VERY smart (emphasis mine): Minimum wage is for minimum abilities not to be confused with a living wage which is skilled labor (H/T: Tammy on Facebook) The Left NEVER talks about the skill sets that sets someone apart from the bottom of the economic rungs of the ladder from those … Read more

Six Things Other Governments Provide for which Americans Still Have to Pay…

I was just minding my own business when this headline scrolled its way before my eyes. “6 things other governments provide that Americans still have to pay for.”

I think it should read “Six things other governments provide for which Americans still have to pay,” but I can write in cursive and also believe that there are thousands of buying decisions laundered through government that every-day Americans are more qualified to make, including the six things in this MSN article.

Read more

70 Years of American Progress

That about covers it.  

Data Point – Why Work? Welfare pays better

Welfare Pays Better Than Working

Yep. As the chart clearly illustrates, total welfare spending in the U.S. (if converted into cash payments) equals approximately “$168 per day for every household in poverty,” higher than the $137 median income per-day.

 From the senator’s office:

Read more

Federal Government: Reduced to being an Entitlement Processor?

From the Wall Street Journal:

“In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.

A half-century of unfettered expansion of entitlement outlays has completely inverted the priorities, structure and functions of federal administration as these were understood by all previous generations”

“.. approached $29,000“.  That is set against the average income of the American family around $54,000 – and it becomes easy to see why families are paying 50% of their income in taxes (or more) to all levels of government (local, county, state, and Federal).  Is this what the Founders wanted to create – families paying half of what they have labored for to fund Government?  I think not.

Is it really the role of Government to take care of us?  Or is it the role of Government to simply set a floor so that we can take care of ourselves? Or has something happened to our national psyche such that our formerly “con-do,  self-reliant” outlook has been reduced to a “take care of me!” mentality?  In looking at the chart, I fear that the answer is yes.  Have we gone from a general Society that depends on Individuals voluntarily banding together to solve problems in helping others to one where Individuals have outsourced that responsibility to Government?

Read more

Data Point – What goes in is certainly coming out.

Silly me – and I thought taxes were need to actually pay for functions of actual Government (like salaries, office equipment, armies…) (H/T: Business Insider)

Building the American Underclass

Theodore Dalrymple (pen name), has produced some of the most compelling work I’ve read about the welfare state and how it creates and sustains the underclass.  If you are still staring out across the crumbling wreckage of the fruited plain, wondering how we got here and where we may be headed, Dalrymple has some very relevant observations.   A doctor with the British Health Service (Blimey Obamacare), he has and continues to write at great length about the victims of government largess, and the sorry state of his country as a result of it.

In a recent article in City Journal, he wrote…”The riots are the apotheosis of the welfare state and popular culture in their British form.”

Watch This Video Now

The Vote Pump.  Watch it.

Teri Norelli Cries Foul on the Budget: Insert Yawn Here

“If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” ~Milton Friedman, Economist Democratic leader Terri Norelli takes pen to the Union Leader this morning to decry the Republican budget. Norelli does a masterful work in her use of descriptors and categorizations demagoguing the Republicans … Read more

Executive Council’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood Is Sinister

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” ~Margaret Sanger, founder, Planned Parenthood

planned_parenthood_Grok.jpg

Kate Lancor, former Moultonborough welfare director decries the Executive council’s recent vote to defund Planned Parenthood. In her Union Leader Opposite Editorial entitled, Women need the services Planned Parenthood provides, Ms. Lancor characterizes the council vote as, “A pathetic lack of creative thinking in this [sic]country’s elected bodies that even allow such choices to be made.”

While giving readers a thumbnail history of Planned Parenthood and extolling its “community virtues,” Lancor admonishes, “Don’t politicize this, and make it an abortion issue, but rather a health care issue for millions of needy women. Buried underneath the portrayal of Planned Parenthood by lobbyists and politicians as trained abortionists lies years of providing family-planning education and much-needed affordable healthcare to millions of women and men.” 

Lancor nails the talking points flawlessly in stating that, “Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives; breast, cervical and testicular cancer screenings; pregnancy testing and counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortion.”  Kate Lancor paints us a picture of a multi-faceted, healthcare-focused organization that is invaluable to communities.  Now who could possibly argue with that? Indeed, Ms. Lancor makes the case for its virtues. Ms. Lancor however overlooks the many problems with Planned Parenthood as an organization. So I’ll take them up where Ms. Lancor has conveniently left off.

Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization. Despite repeated requests, Planned Parenthood will not open its books. Planned Parenthood spent more than $1 Million dollars in the 2010 election cycle supporting their candidates.

Planned Parenthood has provided services to men characterized as traffickers in the sex trade. Planned Parenthood has been the defendant in lawsuits charging the organization covered up the rapes of under-aged girls. Finally, numerous media reports detail clinics that overbilled by millions.

Read more

Tin-Eared Bureaucrats

“Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.” ~Laurence J. Peter

refugees_manchvegas.jpg

Barbara Seebart, New Hampshire State Refugee Coordinator didn’t appear to grasp Mayor Ted Gatsas’ assertions that the City of Manchester is not prepared to absorb another 300 refugees. The Board of Mayor and Alderman voted in favor of a moratorium this month given the city’s current financial situation.

Seebart, told the mayor she would pass along his concerns to the hacks in Washington DC, but then ended her response to Gatsas with this little gem: “I look forward to our continued collaboration in assuring refugees are successfully resettled in Manchester.”  As reported in today’s edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Gatsas promptly responded to Seebart asserting, “I continue to question how success is measured with regards to resettlement by both yourself and the International Institute of New Hampshire; to date that question has yet to be sufficiently answered.”

 On July 7, the Union Leader reported that Seebart expressed concerns about scarce case management after refugees have been in the Queen city 6-9 months, as well as concerns with the economy and potential welfare law changes. Yet her above statement seems to indicate a tin ear.

On July 10 International Institute of New England Board Chairman William Gillett, in the Union Leader argued against a moratorium stating, “To suggest that refugees resettling in Manchester “are going to suffer because there are not enough resources for them” ignores completely the conditions and lives that the refugees have fled…” Gillett further arrogantly opines, “Any lack of adequate resources is a failure of will, not a failure of ability.” Another tin ear.

The city has cut back on many services; The city has laid off workers; and, the tax payers are facing another tax increase.  Gillett’s organization is not shy about spending the tax payers dollars, either. Gillett points out that, “A significant amount of federal money flows in to Manchester to support refugee resettlement. These funds target refugee employment assistance, health care, English language and citizenship classes and, specifically, the educational needs of refugee children in the Manchester schools.  organization…” What he wants us to believe is that such federal funds are sufficient to do all that he says they are intended to do. Not true. And Gillet’s own organization’s report reflects that where IINH states, “

Read more

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work!

“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.” ~Edmund Burke And when older people are yelling, “Don’t cut my Social Security!” Do you think they know about this community in Tacoma Washington? SO here you have it….Obama pimping the old people to keep … Read more

Two Congressmen And A Free Throw

HR 1 The US House just finished it’s work on HR1, cleaning up after democrats who in 2010 abrogated yet another  obligation when they found themselves incapable of writing the budget they really wanted right before an election.

The liberal-progressives wanted more spending but that was not politically advantageous.  And since the single driving-force behind all Democrat decisions is politics the budget got relegated to the back of the bus, where the electorate’s short attention spans were meant to forget that democrats were never fiscally conscious representatives–they just tried to play them on the campaign trail. 

But avoiding the high profile budget battle was more evidence that they had something to hide. The Democrat House majority was appropriately sedated and placed under observation, while the Senate saw minor adjustments but no change in leadership.  So the process of changing our spending ways would still have to go through a Democrat controlled Senate and across the desk of a President who thinks the words "spending cuts" are just a rhetorical flourish used to provide cover for more spending.

Obama’s budget is proof enough of that.

But Obama only proposes a budget.  The House is in charge of spending.  So the new Republican congress went to the back seat of the Hopey-changey bus and picked up the budget obligations abandoned by the 111th congress.  This wwas a free shot at changing the fiscal direction of the country before writing their own first official budget, which was not due until later in 2011.  It was a gimme, a free throw, but one that had to survive the democrat Senate and the Spender in Chief.

So how did it turn out?

Read more

Computer: hitting it on the head

Computers – talking about the stuff that politicians refuse to do! (H/T: Hot Air)

Share to...