The Department of Homeland Security put out an assessment of rightwing extremist. The definition of a rightwing is "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." The definition is on its face offensive and anticonstitutional.
The reason this definition is offensive is it lumps together hate-oriented groups with groups that are focused on a single issue. I doubt the the threat from a hate-mongering organization is the same as from a group that opposes abortion. The agenda of these two groups are diametrically opposed. One is for saving all innocent lives, one is to propagate hate. I know there are those of you saying, yeah but you can't claim the same innocence on the part of staunch immigration opponents. I believe you can easily make that argument as well. People who are for strong border security do not hate immigrants, they do not hate people based on race. These people believe that we should uphold our laws. Illegal immigrants should not be costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year, in welfare, education, and social security. Not to mention the cost of additional crimes. Security is an issue the government must be strong on. If we had better boarder control, we would have less drugs and cartel violence in our country. Putting these groups in with hate-oriented groups is offensive.
Secondly, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states, "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." Say that it is extreme to reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, seems to in direct violation of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers we're very clear, that unless an authority was granted to the Federal Government it belonged to the states. Apparently we have gotten so far of course that the Founding Fathers would be considered Rightwing Extremeist.
I am sure I will quickly be added to the Rightwing Extremist watchlist. I am opposed to abortion, the believe in strong boarder security, and believe the Federal Goernmant as usurped power that most definately belongs to the states. I fall into everyone one of those catergories, except being involoved in a hate-oriented group. I have never, not do I plan to act violently towards these ideals. My beliefs are such that I must work with in the system to peacefully promote the causes I hold dear. Yet by this definition I am a rightwing extremist. How said is it that traditional values are so under attack that we now call these values extreme!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Girl Sue Father Over Grounding and Wins
I do not know if you have seen this story yet but it is scary.
Read Story Here
For any judge to say what is too extreme of punishment for a rule broken in my home is absurd. This man was grounding his daughter from a class trip because she was not only spending time on websites he found inappropriate for his daughter she was also posting inappropriate pictures of herself. She is 12. This father was protecting his daughter and some screwball judge says that he can't enforce his house rules. This is a sad sick ruling. Now of course I am no advocating abuse, but grounding is certainly not abuse.
This ruling just points on the need for the Parental Rights Amendment. The UN is already trying to get the US to ratify the The Children's Bill of Rights. This sounds very innocent, however there are some disturbing, number 5 on the list is the right to media access. I am a firm believer that I am here to protect my children and not all media is appropriate for children. As a parent I am best able to determine what is appropriate for my child's maturity. Number 7, the right to privacy. I agree you need to give children some privacy, but once again in order to protect and teach my children they are not given the same amount of privacy as an adult. Anyone who has raised children realized privacy is something that increases with age. My favorite is number 10 freedom of association. This one is the most absurd. Taken to the extreme, if a child wants to be part of a gang or cult, the parents are just suppose to smile and let it happen. This is the most insane idea I have ever heard. As a parent it is my job to protect and teach my child. To say I should not have some say over who they associate with is ludicrous.
We need to stand with our leaders and encourage them to support the Parental Rights Amendment. We can not allow this craziness to move into the US. Anyone who has raised a child or taken even a single parenting class knows that children need boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no center. When children understand the rules and consequences they are more peaceful. It is crazy to say children should be able to do whatever he or she wants. Please talk to your legislators and share your support of the Parental Rights Amendment!
Read Story Here
For any judge to say what is too extreme of punishment for a rule broken in my home is absurd. This man was grounding his daughter from a class trip because she was not only spending time on websites he found inappropriate for his daughter she was also posting inappropriate pictures of herself. She is 12. This father was protecting his daughter and some screwball judge says that he can't enforce his house rules. This is a sad sick ruling. Now of course I am no advocating abuse, but grounding is certainly not abuse.
This ruling just points on the need for the Parental Rights Amendment. The UN is already trying to get the US to ratify the The Children's Bill of Rights. This sounds very innocent, however there are some disturbing, number 5 on the list is the right to media access. I am a firm believer that I am here to protect my children and not all media is appropriate for children. As a parent I am best able to determine what is appropriate for my child's maturity. Number 7, the right to privacy. I agree you need to give children some privacy, but once again in order to protect and teach my children they are not given the same amount of privacy as an adult. Anyone who has raised children realized privacy is something that increases with age. My favorite is number 10 freedom of association. This one is the most absurd. Taken to the extreme, if a child wants to be part of a gang or cult, the parents are just suppose to smile and let it happen. This is the most insane idea I have ever heard. As a parent it is my job to protect and teach my child. To say I should not have some say over who they associate with is ludicrous.
We need to stand with our leaders and encourage them to support the Parental Rights Amendment. We can not allow this craziness to move into the US. Anyone who has raised a child or taken even a single parenting class knows that children need boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no center. When children understand the rules and consequences they are more peaceful. It is crazy to say children should be able to do whatever he or she wants. Please talk to your legislators and share your support of the Parental Rights Amendment!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
THE STEM CELL DEBATE IS DEAD!!
I am not sure Dr. Oz will be back on the Oprah show, even after being a long time guest of Oprah. Her face was priceless after Dr. Oz shocking announces that "I think, Oprah, the stem cell debate is dead."
Ans then goes on to say"
"I think we are single digit years away from making a big impact in the lives of Parkinson’s disease but also diabetics, heart disease, people who have had a lot of problems."
The reason her face was so priceless is that she realized the political implication of his statement. It means that it is unnecessary to destroy human life to cure these diseases, which until now we have been told is the only way to find a cure. How exciting that we can protect the most innocent lives and still find cures for these disabling diseases. Now I am sure President Obama and his allies will not protect these lives, as his record on protecting innocent life is abhorrent. And since facts matter little to the left, I am sure the battle will remain. No more than ever we can stand for what is right, and protect all human life!
Monday, April 6, 2009
President Obama- Which Country does he Represent?
Have you heard excerpts of Obama's speeches from his trip to Europe? I find them quite disturbing. First of all you would think he hates this country and thinks we the great trouble makers of the world. I think it is sad that he thinks by disparaging our country across the world. He is suppose to be looking after our interests. I think he thinks that the Europeans with respect him more if he says exactly what they want to hear. This never works. It boss not work to suck-up to a crappy tyrannical boss, he does not respect you he walks all over you. Thank Obama, I know what the world to love us. I could careless, how they feel about us. Well, Maybe that isn't true, I would prefer they respect us out of healthy fear!
The even more disturbing part of his speeches his claim that the US will be the first to limit our nuclear weapons. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be the only country without nuclear weapons. I don't want the crazy tyrants in North Korea, Iran or any other company to have more weapons then us. Pacifism works on an individual level, it rarely works as a country. I don't want my children growing-up on under the rule of one of these dictators.
The even more disturbing part of his speeches his claim that the US will be the first to limit our nuclear weapons. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be the only country without nuclear weapons. I don't want the crazy tyrants in North Korea, Iran or any other company to have more weapons then us. Pacifism works on an individual level, it rarely works as a country. I don't want my children growing-up on under the rule of one of these dictators.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Taking the Joy Out of Giving
There are a few things the Government is suppose to do; protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. When Government over steps it's bounds many are hurt. When the Government tries to take over the role of charities it hurts all of us! Trading charitable giving for taxes takes the joy out of giving. The government bureaucracy is less efficient than the public sector. The government gets to choose who gets the money, not the donor. Government should step back and gets back to its job, not creating more power and programs for a few.
When we believe that it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate we lose the opportunity to serve. No one likes April 15th, in fact most American's hate it. When you give your time or money to charity it feels great to know you are helping others. When you take the time and see how your money or time is adding value to your community you know you have made a difference. When you actually sacrifice for the good of the whole you get the personal satisfaction. When you pay taxes you wallet is lighter, but there is not joy, no satisfaction, no difference made. By robbing people of the joy of giving and telling people the government will just take care of the issue is harmful to the country as a whole.
Government is by design less efficient then the private sector. Instead of just being able to go out and get things done, government programs have to go through committee, and miles of red tape. While a charities can help people as they come through the door. The government is going to have a line or waiting list or some extensive list of requirements. Not that some requirements are not necessary. It would not be hard for many to fall through the cracks. If an individual comes in to a church or other non-profit there is the ability to treat each person individually and have their particular situation in mind, not follow a government mandate. Plus many would argue the welfare state has been the main trouble in the minority community. The rules and regulations basically require that fathers be absent to get money. The most common trait of those in jail is coming from fatherless home. Quite obviously the government has already failed in the role of charity.
The way the government spends money, I am not too excited to know that they get to choose how my money is doled out to non-profits. I should not have to give my hard earned money to groups whose mission I do not believe in. I don't want to give money to planned parenthood. Their mission is not only abhorrent their tactics are despicable. I certainly hate some some of my tax dollars go to ACORN. I find it insane that non-profit money would go to a group with such an obvious political slant. I should have the freedom to give to whomever I choose.
President Obama now wants to decrease the tax deduction on charitable giving. I understand why, he gives such a small portion of his income to charitable causes. He probably doesn't even know where he gave, since it was quite obvious that he didn't give much before he decided to run for President and wasn't that impressive once he started. I am sure like everything else it was a planned campaign strategy. I am guess that most of his liberal buddies don't care either. As has been reported in more then one study, Republicans give a significantly large portion of their income then democrats. I guess when you think it is the governments job to take care of others, there is no personal responsibility!
When we believe that it is the government's job to take care of the less fortunate we lose the opportunity to serve. No one likes April 15th, in fact most American's hate it. When you give your time or money to charity it feels great to know you are helping others. When you take the time and see how your money or time is adding value to your community you know you have made a difference. When you actually sacrifice for the good of the whole you get the personal satisfaction. When you pay taxes you wallet is lighter, but there is not joy, no satisfaction, no difference made. By robbing people of the joy of giving and telling people the government will just take care of the issue is harmful to the country as a whole.
Government is by design less efficient then the private sector. Instead of just being able to go out and get things done, government programs have to go through committee, and miles of red tape. While a charities can help people as they come through the door. The government is going to have a line or waiting list or some extensive list of requirements. Not that some requirements are not necessary. It would not be hard for many to fall through the cracks. If an individual comes in to a church or other non-profit there is the ability to treat each person individually and have their particular situation in mind, not follow a government mandate. Plus many would argue the welfare state has been the main trouble in the minority community. The rules and regulations basically require that fathers be absent to get money. The most common trait of those in jail is coming from fatherless home. Quite obviously the government has already failed in the role of charity.
The way the government spends money, I am not too excited to know that they get to choose how my money is doled out to non-profits. I should not have to give my hard earned money to groups whose mission I do not believe in. I don't want to give money to planned parenthood. Their mission is not only abhorrent their tactics are despicable. I certainly hate some some of my tax dollars go to ACORN. I find it insane that non-profit money would go to a group with such an obvious political slant. I should have the freedom to give to whomever I choose.
President Obama now wants to decrease the tax deduction on charitable giving. I understand why, he gives such a small portion of his income to charitable causes. He probably doesn't even know where he gave, since it was quite obvious that he didn't give much before he decided to run for President and wasn't that impressive once he started. I am sure like everything else it was a planned campaign strategy. I am guess that most of his liberal buddies don't care either. As has been reported in more then one study, Republicans give a significantly large portion of their income then democrats. I guess when you think it is the governments job to take care of others, there is no personal responsibility!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A New Era or Responisbility
I am so sick of Obama claiming responsibility. He continues to marvel at his new open and responsible administration. Yet, he continues to lay blame on the Bush Administration. His budget plan includes an 12 page introduction called Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities. This does not sound like someone willing to take responsibility.
I understand we are currently in a crisis, we have not seen since the 1970's. And please stop believing this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We have had over 30 years of mass prosperity. This was not a limited prosperity as some would have you believe, but 30 year period where people had more then they ever had before. This is a direct result of Reagan and his tax policies. While Obama and the democrats want you to believe that Reagan, Bush 41, and especially Bush 43 are responsible for this crisis. The blame lays a lot closer to home. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Pelosi have more to do with this crisis. We have allow groups like ACORN and legislation like The Community Reinvestment Act to force banks into making loan to unworthy borrowers. Don't get me wrong banks made a lot of money when they sold these loan to Freddie and Fannie. The goal of affordable housing, while lofty, isn't practical. Some people are not ready to own their home. Renting is a legitimate option for many Americans, it does not make them less of a person. Making owning a home a right is silly.
I am at a loss as to how in an economic crisis we are trying to spend our way out of it. If I as an individual lost my job and they ran-up as much debt as I could get my hands on including pillaging my children's savings and college accounts; you would think I had lost my mind. If I did all of this spending it wildly on things that had no chance of bringing me income in the future, surely you would wonder what I was thinking. If I do that as an individual, it affects my family and myself. When we do this as a country we are punishing our children and grandchildren. Burdening them with a debt we can hardly imagine. Let let congress know what we think. Let's ask them to be fiscally responsible. If they are not, let make sure we find fiscally responsible people for the 2010 elections. Begin to learn what your congressperson is doing and find out how they vote. At http://thomas.loc.gov/ you can track legislation.
I understand we are currently in a crisis, we have not seen since the 1970's. And please stop believing this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We have had over 30 years of mass prosperity. This was not a limited prosperity as some would have you believe, but 30 year period where people had more then they ever had before. This is a direct result of Reagan and his tax policies. While Obama and the democrats want you to believe that Reagan, Bush 41, and especially Bush 43 are responsible for this crisis. The blame lays a lot closer to home. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Pelosi have more to do with this crisis. We have allow groups like ACORN and legislation like The Community Reinvestment Act to force banks into making loan to unworthy borrowers. Don't get me wrong banks made a lot of money when they sold these loan to Freddie and Fannie. The goal of affordable housing, while lofty, isn't practical. Some people are not ready to own their home. Renting is a legitimate option for many Americans, it does not make them less of a person. Making owning a home a right is silly.
I am at a loss as to how in an economic crisis we are trying to spend our way out of it. If I as an individual lost my job and they ran-up as much debt as I could get my hands on including pillaging my children's savings and college accounts; you would think I had lost my mind. If I did all of this spending it wildly on things that had no chance of bringing me income in the future, surely you would wonder what I was thinking. If I do that as an individual, it affects my family and myself. When we do this as a country we are punishing our children and grandchildren. Burdening them with a debt we can hardly imagine. Let let congress know what we think. Let's ask them to be fiscally responsible. If they are not, let make sure we find fiscally responsible people for the 2010 elections. Begin to learn what your congressperson is doing and find out how they vote. At http://thomas.loc.gov/ you can track legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
