Uncivil Rights

What is the problem with the Illinois Republican Party? They're comparable to the Democratic Party at the national level. They whine, call names, and have no logical thoughts or arguments.

We've talked about the Richard Irvin flyer fiasco. His constituents are claiming that he apologized already, what more do we want? Well, you can start by firing the guy that made the flyer - someone DID make it that way - not the printer. Someone sent it to the printer that way - the printer didn't change it. It was DELIBERATE. The damage has been done and Irvin thinks all he needs to do is apologize.

Now, over at Illinois Leader Discussion Forum, he has his little pitbull puppies, not necessarily defending him as much as ripping Tom Weisner. A little taste from various discussions:

Raybeam:
If Tom Weisner is only concerned about the area where he lives, then why the #%@! is he running for Mayor of Aurora? Why doesn't he run for Prince of Prairie Street?

Vicki, you support Tom's lies and misleading and now we see you support his being a coward. Let me guess, you probably are going to come up with an excuse about Weisner being a draft dodger, too.

Weisner said he CHOSE to leave the city to focus on his campaign. He did so at the time of the water crisis. He has run around claiming the timing is just a coincidence. We know for a FACT that he disappeared and went AWOL during the water crisis, THEN quit. The truth is his departure was related to his disappearance. If he wanted to focus on the campaign, he could have CHOSE to wait until after the water crisis.

Weisner operates with threats and intimidation. He's a dirty, vindictive and disturbed individual.

If Weisner's cronies are successful in winning this election, we have chaos, scandals and investigations to look forward to surrounding the draft-dodging liar.

Garth Algars:
Mule, Half truths will not get you anywhere. Meg Gorecki had many issues that we are all aware of. Richard was never demoted or Fired like you contend the facts are out there and anyone can verify them.

As for crackheads! Only crackheads would back a draft dodger, a quiter, an individual who has no fiscal responsibility (ala the roundhouse debacle, the rubber stamping of the cable contract and garbage contract just to name a few) A guy who campaigns on 'experience' but fails to mention how much that experience has cost the people of Aurora. (millions over 18 years)

Don't forget the fact Tom is a draft dodger!
Tom lies and misleads.
Tom lies.
When things get tough Tom runs and hides (Viet Nam, Water Crisis, just to name a few)
Tom is a stale old fish.

Some classic stuff. Intelligent, well-thought out, logical, emotionless (NOT).

How many time have we heard the liberals scream that Bush "lied" about WMDs? Here, we have the same rhetoric. It makes me ashamed that Irvin claims he's a Republican. I'm not buying it though. If you whine like a liberal, cry like a liberal, and scream lies like a liberal little girl...YOU'RE A LIBERAL!

I do not know Richard Irvin personally.

He is running for the seat of Mayor of the city of Aurora, Illinois. It is the second largest city in the state.

I do not know Richard Irvin personally. But he is what is wrong with the Republican party in Illinois.

He has, in the recent past, argued for the use of Eminent Domain merely to increase tax revenues.
So you would take a man’s home through threat of fine or jail if you must, in order to build a Wal-Mart, Mr. Irvin? You would force people out of their homes so McDonalds could sell more Big Mac’s? A life time of mortgage payments declared meaningless for the sake of pushing a Happy Meal.
Worse yet, the area he had in mind does not even fall under the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Aurora. It is outside the boundaries of the city. Mr. Irvin, NASA called, they said that rocket scientist job has been filled.

I do not know Richard Irvin personally. But he must know me, because he thinks I’m pretty stupid.

In his latest insult to all that is Conservative, his office was responsible for mailing a flyer, days before the election, which basically stated that his opponent, Tom Weisner, was responsible for poisoning Aurora’s water supply. Mr. Weisner is a Democrat and thus no great friend of mine, but this is past below board. It is an outright lie.
He later apologized. But he followed up this debacle by claiming that it was the printer where he had sent the document that was in error. I personally saw this flyer and that is just a ridiculous claim. I was born at night, Mr. Irvin, but not last night.

Living in Illinois, I am victim to much inanity from the Left. Dick Durbin is my Senator after all. But unfortunately, in this Blue state it comes from the Right as well.

Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones

Judy Barr-Topinka for Governor? Is that the best we can do? Maybe she would eliminate the sales tax on cigarettes?

I warned Tom Cross about backing people before knowing what they stand for and what kind of people they are. In this post I stated:

Note to Tom Cross: before you back a candidate and make him one of the new premier Republican candidates for the future of Illinois, I suggest you make sure his stance on issues are roughly the same as yours. I would hate to see you guys taken advantage of, but that would be funny.

I love it when people prove me correct. In Irvin's latest fiasco, he blames his opponent, Tom Weisner, for contaminating the drinking water! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What AN IDIOT!
We all received the flyer yesterday. It was so horrendously false it made me laugh. I couldn't believe Irvin was this stupid. Here is the news story from the Beacon News.

AURORA — Mayoral candidate Richard Irvin apologized Thursday for a mailer sent out by his campaign that claims his opponent Tom Weisner was responsible for the contamination of the city's water supply last year that led to a 10-day boil order.

Irvin admitted the information contained in the flier is wrong and blamed the mistake on his printing company. He called Weisner to apologize Thursday morning after the piece started arriving in the mail.

OF COURSE THE PRINTER DID IT! Silly me, I alwways thought the candidate and his campaign made the flyer then had the printer print it. I guess in this case, the printer created all the lies.

The mailer wrongly states that Weisner, as Aurora's community service director, made the city's water too dangerous to drink in February 2004 when he "allowed our water supply to be contaminated with high levels of ammonia and E. coli — forcing a 10-day boil order."

While Weisner oversaw the city's customer service center that fielded calls about the crisis, he was in no way responsible for water quality.

My God, have liberals infiltrated the Republican Party of Illinois?

Weisner said he doesn't accept Irvin's explanation and compared his apology to "saying sorry for sticking that knife in your jugular."

"How can something that's 90 percent false be a simple oversight of a few changes?" he said.

Irvin said the flier was supposed to state that Weisner quit in the middle of the crisis when he was responsible for communicating with the public about the boil order. But the marketing company did not make the corrections to the flier before sending it out, as requested, Irvin said.

So someone in his campaign DID create this flyer as is.

"If there wasn't a clear one-year trend of negatives, you might say this was just an aberration," Weisner said. "This is just another negative action in a long string."

Is this the way the Illinois Republican Party is going to gain a foothold? By supporting an idiot, an immature, dishonest idiot? Tom Cross actually declared this guy a top ten Republican newcomer.

I think this little "slip up" shows his lack of judgment, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, and lack of dignity. It is quite obvious Richard Irvin is too immature to lead the great city of Aurora into the future. His platform of "1 Aurora" is quite different the platform he preaches. It looks like he is more interested in dividing Aurora than bringing it together.

Time to hang it up Richard. And it's time to rethink the Illinois Republican ideology, maybe get some morals and values it can stand for rather than putting this crap in the spotlight. TO TOM CROSS - I TOLD YOU SO!

Do Democrats have a mental disease? Are they somehow retarded? Is hypocrisy part of this dementia?

I think you've all heard snippets from the MoveOn.org convention of the mentally challenged party.

Do they understand the term "deomcracy"? It is the rule of the majority. If one party has the majority in Congress, the agenda of that majority is pushed. Does anyone remember the Democrat controlled congresses from the 40's through the 80's? They didn't seem to mind having the majority then. Now, they are screaming about the majority-because it's not their party-hypocrisy.

Such stunning quotes as:

"They want the rubber stamp of dictatorship," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

"They want one-party rule," said Senator Patrick Leahy.

"An ill wind blows through this country. Your freedom of speech is in jeopardy," said Senator Robert Byrd. "The opponents of the filibuster, the opponents of free speech say we don't need 217 years of American history."

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton also took turns at the microphone to denounce a Republican "power grab." They were speaking on Wednesday at a rally organized by MoveOn.org.

Power grab? They have the majority, idiot. They have the power. There is no need for a "grab" because the voters "gave" them the power. They have the majority in the House, the Senate, and they have the white house because the voters wanted it that way. They are NOT opposed to filibusters, only the abuse of it. The Democrats have successfully halted not only debate, but a vote, on judicial nominations, nominations that have the constitutionally required 51 votes for confirmation. That is abuse.

They are requiring those nominations to have 60 votes for confirmation, and that is unconstitutional.

Senate Republicans, upset that a mere 95 percent of Bush's judicial nominations have been approved, have proposed eliminating the filibuster, and with it the minority party's ability to oppose a nomination and to insist on 60 votes rather than 51 for approval.

All the bulls#(^ over changing the senate rules is disgusting also. TRobert Byrd changed those exact senate rules in 1989 and lowered the votes required to end a filibuster from 67 to 60, so STOP THE HYPOCRISY.

The voters have voted and Republicans are the majority. It's time to allow work to be done.

Social Security is NOT guaranteed. There is NO guarantee to any amount of benefits from Social Security.

Homo-Normative is an oxymoron, and for someone to think heterosexuality is NOT the norm is just a moron.

Robert Byrd has dementia. He abhors the "nuclear option" and demonizes the Republicans for instituting it, yet he did it himself in the '80's; that hypocritical. Then again, with his dementia, he probably doesn't remember it. I'm sure he had a cross burning that night.

Raising the ceiling on taxable income to save Social Security without increasing benefits to those in the higher tax bracket is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, a fine socialistic ideal.

Barbara Boxer has not had an original thought to benefit America in 4 years.

Ted Kennedy has not had an original thought to benefit America in 90 years.

John Kerry has yet to realize he lost the Presidential election.

Hillary Clinton has become the "Silly Putty" presidential candidate, able to be molded and used anyway you want.

There is no more "constitutional law" in America, thank you Justice Kennedy.

Free speech is OK as long as it's used to bash America.

Ahhh, smell the air, it’s fresh. It’s smelled cleaner since we abolished all internal combustion engines. Smog is almost non-existent now.

It’s a long walk to the communal garden, filled with organic vegetables. We must hurry and gather our share before night falls. It’s cloudy, and without electricity until tomorrow, we need to get back before dark.

When we totally switched to solar power two years ago, we thought we could supply the whole nation. I guess you take the good and the bad. We eliminated all oil consumption and dependency, and nuclear power, so the planet safer. I’m just sorry to see the solar panels cover 14 Midwest states, completely. At least the windmills in the northern, western, and southwestern states take up little usable space; it’s the damn noise that drives people crazy. Unfortunately, states alternate days for usage, and our day is tomorrow.

Friday marks a very special day. It’s Grandma’s 65th birthday. We’ll all miss her of course, but since the aged are a burden to feed and not much help with the manual chores, the communal leaders all agreed that at 65 you’ve outlived your usefulness to the community. I think the number 65 came from history. I once heard that in the old days, when people reached 65 they got to quit working and have the government pay them NOT to work. It sounds amazing. How could anyone allow themselves to be a burden to their community? Well, I heard that society back then was full of selfish people, not thinking about the common good. Oh well, I hope I get a leg. It’s been a long time since I ate any meat. That was on Uncle John’s 65th birthday. Sometimes I wish we could eat other meats, but since the PETA Party has had control of the government, you shouldn’t even bring it up. Sometimes it’s hard to understand how they can beat a man to death while saving an opossum.

I heard it’s going to be a scorcher tomorrow. Between the sun getting hotter and the volcanic activity in the south pacific causing an increase in green house gases, the average temperature is 94 degrees. I heard that North Dakota used to be cold, a long time ago. You would never know it now.

Well, that’s all for now. Paper is scarce since the closing of all paper processing plants, but at least the planet’s cleaner.

This is from Neal Boort at www.boortz.com and is one of my favorites:

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

With talk of democracy here and in the middle-east, this quote takes on more significance. We are seeing examples of these stages around the world. For instance, here in America, the Dems agenda focuses on entitlements and markets those entitlements to its voting base. America is moving from apathy to dependency. I believe that is why we had a record voter turnout in November.

We have the conservatives touting the ownership society, responsibility, and accountability, and we have the liberals touting welfare, socialized medicine, and free healthcare. The right promotes individualism while the left promotes collectivism.
The right wants less government intervention in business while the left wants to increase government intervention including mandatory paid time-off, mandatory paid sick-leave, and mandated minimum wage. Basically, the left wants to become what Europe has become, a socialist society.

Should Americans want to live in a European society here in America? How are those socialistic ideals working for the Europeans? We can get a little insight from an Expatica.com article titled, “Massive Demos Turn up Heat on French Government.”

PARIS, March 11 (AFP) - The French government was under mounting pressure on Friday to deliver concessions after more than half a million protestors took to the streets to defend the 35-hour work week and demand better pay.

In Europe, the government takes an active role in labor, labor relations, and labor negotiations. It is an example of government intervention into private business. This is what the liberals and Democrats want here in America.

Admitting Thursday's nationwide protests had been a "success", government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope said they showed that "there are in fact many concerns, a lot of questions and worries bothering many of our countrymen."

Seeking to respond to the increasing social discontent, the centre-right government indicated that it would move to kick-start pay negotiations in the private and public sector.

Police said at least 570,000 people joined Thursday's protests across France, which were accompanied by transport strikes that paralysed the Paris metro system and area airports. Organisers said more than a million took part.

The unions have much more power in Europe than here in America. The basic philosophy of a democracy is mob rules. In this case, the unions paralyzed the metro system doing untold damages to the economy and life in general to the commuters. And for what were the unions utilizing their power?

The protests were part of a campaign by labour unions and the Socialist opposition to force President Jacques Chirac to increase wages, reverse reforms of the 35-hour work week and cease efforts to curb the welfare state.

"Higher salaries, shorter working hours, against deregulation and unemployment," read the giant banner at the head of the Paris protest, which police said drew some 35,000 participants - 150,000, according to organisers.

So the unions recognized their power and are utilizing their power for more money and compensation. Who pays for this? The consumers and the government pay for this. The unions understand they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, and they have been doing this for quite some time. Have the unions and this socialistic philosophy benefited France?

France's jobless rate jumped above the symbolic 10 percent mark in January - its highest level in five years - and workers have become even more disillusioned following news of record profits in the country's top publicly-quoted companies.

The history to fixing France’s unemployment rate has been to reduce working hours and hiring more people. The problem of wages and compensation then arises. Workers do not want to accept lower pay for fewer hours worked, so the government antes up. This is typical of government intervention in business defined by socialism.

Socialist leader Francois Hollande on Friday called on Raffarin to take "a quick, clear decision on the central issue of purchasing power".

Unions charge that public sector workers have lost five percent of their buying power since January 2000, taking into account current inflation rates.
Above all, the government does not want the growing dissatisfaction of workers to snowball into a protest "no" vote against a referendum to approve the European Union constitution, scheduled for May 29.

Unfortunately, there are many in this country that hate capitalism and hate big corporations, so much so, they want to restrict the power a corporation has over its employees and regulate compensation. Many of these people want to give more power to unions. These people want to increase the quality of life of the average American worker, a noble goal, however, they never seem to understand and recognize the unintended consequences of their actions. In this case, wanting to be like the Europeans will turn America into a socialistic society, a society we don’t want.

Who can't see Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie portraying Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and doing a better job? In fact, they may bring some sanity and intelligence to the Senate and House. You see, I don't believe Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi exist. I think they are part of a reality show that started decades ago. Who on earth would believe these two are real Congressmen? Come on. No one is that stupid, let alone two of them.

This is from The Washington Times: "Pelosi, Kennedy and Social Security"

The title alone tells me this is made up.

While there is bipartisan agreement that Social Security has a long-term solvency problem, only Republicans seem willing to offer ideas about how to solve it. So, it is fair to ask: What reform plans are Democrats advancing?

Indeed, Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi no fewer than four times for her "plan to solve [Social Security's] long-term solvency" problem, which Mrs. Pelosi freely acknowledged. "The plan for solvency," Mrs. Pelosi finally replied, "is to stop robbing Social Security of its money for other purposes. The plan is to return the money back to the trust fund."

HAHAHAHA, I knew it! Pelosi wants to stop robbing Social Security and return money back to the trust fund! That is funny. This is good stuff. However, it's too absurd to be real. These people have had years to stop spending the trust fund money, long before GW Bush, but now they want to stop that.

Ted Kennedy insisted that the "first" requirement was for the president "to pay back into the Social Security [Trust Fund] all the money he's diverted for his tax program." Solidifying the Democratic position, Mrs. Pelosi said, "We must stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things."

This is where the "Senator" gets stupid. You see "Ted", the government doesn't "pay" for tax cuts. That is simple economics that Paris Hilton could quite possibly grasp, at least as much as a "real" Senator should. And Teddy, how much of the trust fund money has gone for your pet pork projects? But now, after...what...90 years in the Senate, you want to stop the spending? This isn't real.
Ted, Nancy, let's be frank. If you're real, then you know you can write legislation to stop the spending; you've always had that power, write, sponsor, and introduce legislation to save the trust fund. Why haven't you done that up till now?

April 15 is the deadline for Congress to approve a budget resolution for fiscal 2006. That means Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi have about five weeks to demonstrate the courage of their convictions. Nothing prevents them from crafting their own budget resolution that meets their fundamental test. In other words, they should offer a budget resolution that "stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things."

You see, I told you so.

Now, to meet the Kennedy-Pelosi demand -- to "stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things"...to protect the Social Security surplus, they would have to propose a total of $610 billion in tax increases and spending cuts for 2006 alone.
Bridging the $610 billion gap with individual-income-tax increases alone would require raising those taxes by 63 percent. Spending too much money on national defense and in Iraq and Afghanistan? Unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq and reducing the rest of the defense budget by 25 percent would require additional budget cuts and tax increases of more than $425 billion.
If the self-righteous demand of Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi to protect Social Security's "off-budget" surplus is genuine, then they will produce their own budget to accomplish that. We look forward to perusing the $610 billion combination of annual spending cuts and tax increases Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi will need to achieve their goal.

Maybe it's one of those imposter shows where somone pretends to be someone else or they fake their job skills to fool someone. I think the fools for this show are the American people and especially those that vote these two into office.

I'm still waiting for that apology Massachusetts.

My Lord I am getting tired of Democrats becoming aware of the tenets of the constitution and then being amazed and confused about them. It’s as if the constitution is in the way of the America they want. In this article, “Securing the Right to Vote as a Citizenship Right”, by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., JJ Jr. is flabbergasted that voting is a state’s right. Voting is controlled and legislated by each individual state.

The fundamental reason is this: the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to vote and therefore Congress fails to establish enforceable uniform standards or a unitary voting system. While it is true that the Constitution does protect against voter discrimination based on race, sex or age and prohibits the use poll taxes or literacy tests, it does not explicitly guarantee that U.S. citizens have a right to vote.
You say "But Congressman, I have been able to register to vote and cast ballots my entire life, what do you mean I do not have a right to vote?" But the fact is that as an American you don't have a citizenship right to vote. Voting in the United States is a "state right", not a "citizenship right."

Is this an eye-opener for a Congressman? Hey JJ Jr., did you know the framers of the constitution specifically wrote the constitution that way? Did you know the framers of the constitution did not want a large powerful federal government? Were you aware the states originally had much more power and control, as was intended? Were you aware the original language also had state Senators being appointed by the state’s legislature, and were not intended to be elected by popular vote? This gave the people and the states voices in the federal government. Hey JJ Jr., I hate to break this news to you but someone obviously has to so here goes; the President isn’t selected by the popular vote. You see we have this thing called the electoral college…well nevermind.
How about some more words of wisdom from the Congressman:

Comparatively, a "state right" is not an American citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by each state - and limited to that state. Therefore, when it comes to voting, each state, each county and elected jurisdiction is different.

There has to be a reason for this new-found enlightenment. I wonder what it could be. Come on JJ Jr. hammer it home:

In other words, our voting system, our house is built on the foundation of "states" rights - 50 states, 3067 counties and more than 12,000 different election jurisdictions, all separate and all unequal. These election jurisdictions can each individually set voting policies and procedures such as ballot design, voter eligibility, which voting equipment is used, polling hours, how to count provisional ballots and what ID requirements are needed.
As a result, more than a million votes in the 2004 election were discarded. In one instance, 4,500 votes were lost forever when a touch-screen voting machine malfunctioned in North Carolina and had no back-up. In Florida and Pennsylvania, two of the most important battleground states in the presidential contest, more than half of the provisional ballots cast were not counted.
Election officials claim most of those were from unregistered voters. The question remains why weren't they registered? Did the local officials make mistakes when preparing voter rolls, a partisan organization simply not mail in their registration forms, or were these voters simply not registered?
Moreover, more than nine million U.S. citizens are permanently or temporarily denied the right to vote they would otherwise enjoy if they lived in a different state. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander-in-chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet more than a half-million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.
The United States stands virtually alone on denying constitutional protection of the right to vote. 108 of the 119 democratic nations in the world have a right to vote in their Constitution - including the Afghan Constitution and the interim Iraqi Constitution. The United States is one of only 11 that do not. At the same time we assist other nations implement democracy, we must also turn the mirror on ourselves and examine what we are doing, what rights we are protecting.

Here we go. Voters were disenfranchised because of the variety of voting systems throughout the various states, and people are too stupid to read directions and punch or poke or select whom they want. So what should we do about this horrendous injustice?

States should have control of many decisions and should be able to set certain laws and standards that are applicable to the responsibility each state has for its citizens. But voting, like freedom of speech, like freedom of religion and due process of law, operates outside of state authority.
Instead of a house on sand, we need to build our democracy and our voting system on a rock, the rock of adding a Voting Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that applies to all states and all citizens. That's why I and 56 colleagues in the House of Representatives have joined to support House Joint Resolution 28 - which in the cause of electoral justice should be the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

So the framers of the constitution built our democracy on sand. Did it ever occur to you, genius, that America is NOT a democracy; it’s a REPUBLIC! The framers must have had people like you in mind when the conceived the constitution. They wrote it, so people like you wouldn’t have to. They wrote it knowing idiots like you could just follow it because you obviously haven’t a clue as to its origins, content, or intent.
The fact is we should have fewer people vote, say only those that pay income taxes, or those that are productive members of society, or those that add to our economy. When you let the uninformed vote, democracy will fail. The fact is you want everyone to vote because the majority of the people do not pay attention and would be more apt to vote for those politicians that promise the voters entitlements from the public coffers. That would be you.
Here’s some advice; walk away JJ Jr., just walk away.

Why isn't more being said in the liberal media about the fallacy of global warming? By this I mean, why isn't the real cause of global warming being discussed? Is it because it is not proper to discuss something that is NOT man made? Is it improper to place blame on nature?

The earth is warming, temps are increasing, it is true. So what is the cause? How about looking at the simplest, most logical and obvious answer. No, it is not man and America's selfish treatment of the earth with all of our smog producing cars, or coal burning factories, or hair spray. THE SUN IS GETTING HOTTER! It is a natural phenomena. It happens. Imagine that, nature at work.

From the Stanford Solar Center, we have this graph which shows solar activity versus climate:

From Live Science.com, we have an article that states:

A dramatic thinning of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last year was the result of intense upper-level winds and an extra dose of space weather, scientists said Tuesday.
...
In a new study, scientists conclude that an intense round of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 was at the root of the problem. Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.

Hmmm...interesting. What about the thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica?

The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.

The new study suggests a better understanding is needed of how the Sun itself alters the ozone layer.

"No one predicted the dramatic loss of ozone in the upper stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere in the spring of 2004," Randall said. "That we can still be surprised illustrates the difficulties in separating atmospheric effects due to natural and human-induced causes."

The thinning of the Arctic ozone layer continues, owing in part to cold temperatures in the stratosphere, according to a separate recent study that suggests a northern hole could develop as a twin to the southern one.

Could the sun then be causing global warming? Have scientists focused too narrowly on potential man-made causes without even considering the potential natural causes? Is this indicative of environmentalists in general, to blame man first, find data to support that thesis, then do a media blitz on said thesis. Our media are only too happy to run stories that show us, the capitalistic America with our over consumtion of resources, in a bad light.

The flare spawned this coronal mass ejection, which hurled charged particles into space. The storm was one of 10 major solar eruption to occur in an unprecedented two-week span of solar storminess.

The most extreme solar flare ever recorded erupted on Nov. 4, 2003.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes and Blogger News Network.

Why does the left hate America? OK not all on the left, but the liberals, progressives and the Deaniacs. America hasn't changed into some horrid place, some 1950's ttype of Russia. In fact, it is these haters-of-America that are trying to change things. They want gay marriage, more entitlements, rights and privileges to the terrorists and illegal aliens, and now they want to give felons and illegal aliens the right to vote.

These haters want America to appease the rest of the world rather than lead the rest of the world. These haters are more concerned with having the rest of world like us (this includes the terrorists) than they are for our safety here at home. They want to give up our freedom of choice except for abortion.

Air America is backed by the left, by liberals. Their blog seems to cover certain types of stories: what's good for America is bad for Democrats, and what's good for Democrats is bad for America. This was first declared a mantra of the Dems by conservatives in the media such as Rush, and the very sad thing is, the left continues to foster this sentiment. They cannot only seem to help themselves, they don't see anything wrong with it.

A typical AA blog:

Thursday, and the newbie is in the house! by TriSec at 03/10/05 08:00 am
________________________________________
Good Morning, Comrades! :coffee2:
Your loyal Tri-Sec has laboured long and hard to make sure we have a tasty and nutritious blog today...

How's a little Impeachment for breakfast? Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California, and is a research assistant at The Independent Institute.

"Calling for President Bush’s impeachment surely sounds seditious to many conservative partisans of the administration and its "war on terrorism."

As they apparently see it, during the relative peacetime of the late 1990s, calling for the impeachment of a Democrat for lying about the whereabouts of his private parts was a public service. But during wartime, to call for the impeachment of a Republican for one of the greatest of all political crimes – that is, the war – is branded treason, or, at best, ridiculed as hysterical anti-American defeatism or simply juvenile white noise."

You probably have heard that the Supreme Court is eventually going to review the legality of posting the Ten Commandments in public places. If there was any justice and truth, every state agency would be required to post a large neon sign with the following message – “We are the state, we murder, we steal, we lie.”
...
Today's "Celebrity" birthdays include Osama bin Laden, who is 47, and James Earl Ray, who would have been 76. From the Light Side of The Force, Bix Beiderbecke would have been 101. Go listen to some jazz later today!

Only 1,335 days until November 4, 2008! :usa:

Comrades? Osama Bin Laden's birthday?

How about this article on the Supreme Court's decision on the death penalty for minors.

The most important aspect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of executing juveniles was its consideration of evolving international views of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The court wisely noted the rising global tide of revulsion against governments killing their younger citizens, no matter what their crime, and ruled that juvenile death sentences in the United States are unconstitutional. Similarly, in the future, the court should heed burgeoning world condemnation of the U.S. death penalty for persons of any age.

I guess our days of constitutional law are numbered.

Yet why stop at ending the death penalty only for juveniles? The United States is also one of a small group of countries, many of which are severe abusers of human rights, that allow the death penalty to be used at all. The United States needs to exit this nefarious club, too.

As discussed at a recent Independent Institute policy forum, “The Death Penalty on Trial,” rising world opposition to the death penalty is not the only reason for ending it within U.S. borders; opposition to this ultimate sanction is also increasing domestically. The principal reason is the incompetence of the government in carrying out the penalty. DNA tests of inmates on death row have exonerated a sizeable number of individuals. Add to this the disproportionate and unfair sentencing of African-Americans to death. Finally, rigorous studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter future capital crimes.

The left wants America to become Europe. The sad part is, the left obviously has not noticed what is happening in Europe; high cost of living, high unemployment, and socialism. Or the sadder thought is they do understand what is happening in Europe, and they still want America to be like them.

What is the motive here? Why would the left want America to be like the rest of the world rather than leading the world? What is so horrible in America that the left wants to change it. It's been the best country in the world, up til now. What's changed?

Someday in the future:

Employers across the country have shut their doors to customers and employees in what has become the first known employer strike in American history.

Owners and operators of businesses of all sizes went on strike today citing numerous reasons. One owner stated, “We’re tired of being labeled the ‘bad guys”. We’re only trying to make a decent living for our families and give decent jobs to our employees, and the government and our own employees are out their telling everyone we’re greedy and treat them like dirt. We’re tired of it. If they don’t like the wages or the way they’re treated, they can leave. As far as the government is concerned, they can’t run their own organization yet they want to tell us how to run ours through regulations and legislation.” Another owner said, “We give up. If the employees and the government think they can run a business better than we can, go for it. Be our guest.”

The group, called Business Owners Liberation Party has called for a complete shut-down for one (1) fiscal year. For that year, the owners will live off of their enormous bank accounts. The only employer will be federal, state, and local governments.

The problems:

Income taxes collected will be roughly 90% less than the previous year. FICA and other payroll taxes will also fall far short (roughly 90%) of predictions. Sales tax will also decline since few people will have any money to spend. Goods and services, other than governmental, will be virtually non-existent. Governmental agencies (including federal, state, and municipal governments) will cut down to basic health and safety services only.
Food, gas, oil, and other life necessities will be rationed by the government.

There are currently several emergency bills being introduced in Congress. One bill would propose to borrow money to cover the vast monetary gap in the budget, somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion dollars for the year. This loan would probably come from China since they have one of the largest and fastest growing economies that would be able to handle such a loan. Another bill would implement martial law to keep looting and lawlessness to a minimum. A bill by Ted Kennedy proposes to have the federal government mandate those striking companies to remain open and to appoint a federal overseer at each company. Kennedy, on the floor of the Senate, stated, “It’s time America frees itself from the bondage of these corporations. The American people are tired of being held hostage, hostage at their job, at their low wages, at their inadequate health care. It is time for the federal government to step up to the plate, to assume the responsibility the American people have entrusted to us, the Congress of the United States, and take over the ownership of these corporations. With Congressional ownership, we can employ all people, at a living wage with free health care and free child care. There will no more discrimination; all people of all faiths, age, gender, sexual orientation, and color, will have equal opportunity in a Congressionally owned business.”

One lone voice dissented to Senator Kennedy’s remarks stating, “That’s communism Senator Kennedy.”

Is there a lesson to be learned from this What If…? Businesses and owners have taken a beating in this country, from the liberals, from the government, and from the Democrats. The belief on the left is that owners are rich and treat their employees poorly, pay them low wages, and generally do not care for them. The consensus on the left is that these rich owners gain their wealth on the labors of the poor. The fact is anyone can own a business. Anyone can become wealthy in this country. Businesses not only benefit the owners, but the workers as well. Workers enjoy employment as long as they are a benefit to the company and the business is successful. A successful business is one that controls costs and has a market for its goods and services at competitive prices. Controlling costs is imperative and has a direct relationship with employee compensation packages.

The fact is a worker needs a place to work, a job to do, and fair market compensation. A business needs competent workers, marketable products, and fairly compensated employees. Without businesses, there would be no need for workers. Do we really want the government to run those businesses?

William (I feel we can be on a first-name basis, now that we’ve had numerous correspondence), I must rebut your comments.

Capitalism is based on freedom, freedom to choose and buy the products you want, freedom to work where you want, freedom to make as much money as you wish; it all depends on you. You are not beholden to any company; you have the freedom of movement. Capitalism does not prohibit any rights. I believe you are a bit confused about capitalism because you live in and are used to Canada’s socialism philosophy.

You believe someone should be paid a “minimum” or “living” wage. This is not capitalism; government intervention and control of private employee wages is socialism. You also probably believe everyone has a “right” to free health care. If you truly understand this concept then you realize health care is not free; someone pays for it. This is income redistribution; again, this is socialism.

They are not my studies, but studies from various universities, think tanks, and the government, over long periods of time. Facts are facts and supply and demand, along with pricing economics can predict, with some accuracy, what will happen to the job market if wages are increased on a mandate from the government in a free market economy. Unemployment will increase and the cost of goods and services will also increase. This will, in turn, increase the selling price of those goods and services; this is simple economics. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives; it is the market.

You have conservative views on a few social issues; otherwise, your views on business, wages, and economics are very liberal. You are a liberal as this post is concerned.

Rich people do not have a right to exploit anyone. That is why if people feel they are being taken advantage of, they have a right to leave and find another job. A business owner has an obligation to his shareholders to minimize costs, increase productivity, and profits. If that means paying people a low wage, so be it. Businesses will realize wages are too low when they cannot hire anyone at their prevailing wage rate. This means that companies will then raise those wages to the market’s prevailing rate (the rate at which an employee will accept and perform that particular job in that particular situation) until they can hire enough employees. For example, a couple of years ago here, the minimum wage was $5.50/hr. There were more jobs available than workers, therefore, businesses were competing against other businesses for workers. McDonalds had to raise its starting wage to $10.00/hr just to be able to hire the number of employees they needed. This was a classic example of supply and demand at work. Should McDonalds have then complained that they are paying too much for those employees?

I brought up spelling and grammar because it really irritates me when one isn’t clear and concise. It makes one look uneducated.

I label those people liberals who have a socialistic agenda and pursue socialistic ideals here in America. Socialism doesn’t work; never has, never will. The next term will be progressives who are pushing a communistic agenda, i.e. government intervention in employee wages, sick time, paid time off, etc.

You obviously have no knowledge of the poor here in America; talk about labeling people. Relatively speaking, the middle-class in France would be considered “poor” here in America. Did you know that? It’s all relative. Those in poverty have been shown to move up the socioeconomic ladder as they get older. In fact, if you look at the statistics, most of those in poverty are under 25, and another interesting little fact, the most affluent class is those over 55.

I’m going to go on a limb here and say your Master’s degree is in some liberal arts area. Am I correct? I have an MBA. I am also a former president of a union, and I am starting my own company. I know of which I speak. My parents were in the lower middle-class. I’ve worked for my education and have a huge student loan which I hope to pay off ASAP. Anyone can apply and get a student loan to further their education and increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities to make themselves more marketable. Anyone can do it.

Canada has higher prices because it is a socialistic country. Your taxes are high because it has to pay for socialized medicine and a whole host of other social programs. If Canada had a free market, capitalistic economy (not socialist), the prices of goods and services would be lower in general.

YOU ARE CORRECT! Not everyone can do it, but everyone has the opportunity to try. For those that cannot take care of themselves, we use to have philanthropy in this country that helped the unfortunate; wealthy people, churches and the like would give large sums of money to help the less fortunate. Now, since government decided to take people’s money to do those things, less people are philanthropic. Does the government do a better job than society? I don’t think so. All wage earners go through stages. No one starts at the top. I have been laid-off twice and have always found something better at higher wages. It took a while, and we were strapped for cash, but that’s what happens; we deal with it and move on.

I am a conservative with LIBERTARIAN views. Bush didn’t make liberal a dirty word, liberals did. As I mentioned before, liberals have socialistic ideals and that doesn’t sit well with most Americans. The word liberal became dirty when their ideals and philosophies were discovered.

No one is forced to do anything in this country except to pay taxes. Anyone can quit a job they hate, or they feel is taking advantage of them. There are plenty of social programs in this country to cover one’s needs until they get back on their feet. I have been on unemployment, it works. The problem is I didn’t make it a way of life like some do in this country. We have created a welfare state; a situation that make it too easy for people NOT to work. I have met people that have utilized welfare for generations. That was not its intent. A basic standard of living is relative to the geographic area. It is not one simple amount.

America is NOT A DEMOCRACY! IT IS A REPUBLIC! Please get this straight.

If no one wanted to live like an American, why are we still receiving immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico? We have the highest standard of living in the world! We have the most freedom in the world!

My clicker is constantly on the move because of debate like this. People love to read this stuff, and for that, I thank you.

This is from Neal Boortz at www.boortz.com:
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

The voters here in America have discovered they can vote themselves money from the public treasury in the form of the minimum wage, welfare, and up next: paid time-off, mandatory sick-time, “living wage”, free health care, etc…it goes on and on. Read Tyler’s words very carefully because this is where the liberals, the Democrats, the progressives, and the rest of the world want us to go.

God, I love it when liberals prove me right.

This is in support of the “Trickle-Up Theory of Economics” espoused by liberals everywhere. The Trickle-Up Theory of Economics states the more money one can redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, the better for the economy. The economy benefits because poor people, inherently, do not save money, rather spend as much money as they receive, thereby putting that money into the economy which would otherwise be saved by the wealthy.

This is in response to a comment by William Volterman on my Minimum Wage post. (I have not edited this in any way; he really spells this badly.)

His comment was this:

Your wrong and your a moron... rich people save not spend.. giving poor people (ie minimum wage earners) more money is better for the economy because they spend all their money... keeping wages low only gives it to rich people who do not put the money back in the economy... rich bastard

William Volterman

If one were to go over to his blog, Jambalya, and read his post, “Congratulations President Bush…”, he claims to be a “conservative Christian”. I seriously doubt it, but then again, if you read his various posts and comments, I don’t believe he has much of a clue about anything. For all we know, “conservative Christian” to him may mean parishioners bring their own bottle of Thunderbird to communion. Anyhow…

Let’s look at what he says in his post:

1 Friggin moron was suggesting we abolish minimum wage. Thats a great idea. As if poor people can live off their shitty job at McCrappys at the current minimum wage. This moron needs to realize that abolishing minimum wage would create a servant class that is permanently enslaved to the upperclass. No more american dream, unless you have the cash to back it up. I would imagine this person also thinks people are poor because they are lazy and dumb...
By the way... for those of you brainwashed by bushes liberal bashing... liberals can do things like same sex marriage which arent popular... but liberals are about rights... remember social security... its a liberal thing... i dont feel like listing them all but just like when liberals go to far left... conservatives can go to far right... and yes i am a conservative christian... but i dont believe in trampling the rights of others in the name of moral supremacy. If they arent hurting people... let god sort them out.

Spoken like a true Christian conservative.
He claims he doesn’t believe in “trampling the rights of others in the name of moral supremacy”, yet he stated in his comments on my post “rich people save not spend.. giving poor people (ie minimum wage earners) more money is better for the economy because they spend all their money... keeping wages low only gives it to rich people who do not put the money back in the economy... rich bastard”. So he believes it’s OK to trample the rights of rich people in the name of moral supremacy because…their rich. Good argument Mr. Volterman, and a nice flip-flop on your stated belief.

Let’s analyze him a little further. Conservative Christian, he is not. He is a liberal, plain and simple. That explains his income redistribution stance, a socialistic stance by the way. His liberal bias is quickly confirmed by his lack of intelligent, logical thought in his “argument.” His retort is rife with pure emotion (name calling), another indication of his liberalism.

He also doesn’t understand people, rich or poor. He has obviously never read a book on nor has a basic understanding of economics, finance, business, psychology, or sociology. It is clear he has never owned his own business. It is also quite clear he failed to read the post on which he is commenting. If he had, he would have read the various studies and their findings which prove the negative impact of the minimum wage (a negative impact occurs every time the minimum wage is raised.) He can’t argue the facts, so he utilizes emotion.

He clearly doesn’t comprehend a free market, capitalistic society, or the freedom of movement along the socioeconomic ladder by the wage earners. He obviously believes the “American Dream” is working at “McCrappys” ABOVE minimum wage. He obviously believes Social Security is a “good thing”, good enough to brag about it (it makes me wonder, when he is old enough to collect his SS, and it isn’t there, what will he think about it then?). He also obviously believes that government wage control is NOT infringing on anyone’s rights.

Now Mr. Volterman, since studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment while artificially raising the price of goods and services, what do you wish to tell those who lose their job and those who pay a higher price for goods and services? Are you going to tell them it’s for their own good? Are you going to tell them to find another job or go elsewhere to shop? When you impose your bad policies that negatively impact the poor and the middle-class, what reason would you give them for wanting to implement these bad policies?

The best thing about liberals is when you post about their incompetence, there will ALWAYS be at least one liberal who will post a comment and prove me right! And for that, I thank you Mr. Volterman. A bit of advice for you sir, read, study, learn, and get spell-check.

The Nuclear Option

Let me get this straight.

The constitution presupposes 51 ayes to confirm a judicial nomination.

It takes 51 votes to enact a Senate rule.

If one party wants to delay or eliminate a vote or discussion on a particular topic or nomination, that party utilizes a filibuster.

Robert Byrd changed a Senate rule in 1979 with 51 ayes. That rule changed the needed votes to end a filibuster from 67 ayes to 60 ayes.

A filibuster is a Senate rule, and it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster.

Therefore, Democrats are, in essence, making Bush’s judicial nominations receive 60 ayes for confirmation.

Democrats are, therefore, violating the constitution.

Thanks to Ogre, Ogre's Politics and Views for his post,Minimum Wage Rules, on The Wide Awakes.

Minimum wage is compassion on the part of the liberals. It's easy for them to support a bad policy such as this because they fail to look at the unintended consequences involved, artificially high prices on goods and services. Sure it raises the buying power of those affected; it has to because it also raises the cost of living. That is simple supply and demand economics.

Liberals must be aware of the consequences of their actions (Iknow, it would be a first). But, I guess when you're buying votes, facts don't matter.

So who will benefit from raising the minimum wage? In this article,"WHO WILL REALLY BENEFIT FROM SENATOR KENNEDY’S $7.25 MINIMUM WAGE?" from Employment Policies Institute, clearly dispells any myth that increasing the minimum wage helps the poor.

3/3/05, Washington – As Congress weighs a hike in the federal minimum wage to $7.25, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and supporters of an increase suggest that the typical minimum wage employee is struggling to raise a family on a single income. The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) notes that U.S. Census Bureau data strongly dispute this portrait as simply untrue. Furthermore, the vast majority of the benefits of such an increase will not reach its intended target—working families.

Who will be helped? Who makes minimum wage now?

An analysis of data compiled by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows that the average family income of employees who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 is nearly $42,000 a year. Why? Because fully 85% of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal either live with working parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse.
Additionally, the majority of potential beneficiaries do not work full-time, and nearly 25 percent don’t even work 20 hours a week. Fully half of all beneficiaries are 25 years old or younger.

Just 15% of beneficiaries will be sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the federal and state earned income tax credit (EITC).

Of U.S. employees affected by the proposed $7.25 minimum wage:

· 41% of minimum wage earners live with a parent or relative · 21% of minimum wage earners are a dual earner in a married couple · 23% of minimum wage earners are a single earner with no kids · Just 15% of minimum wage earners are single parents with kids or a single earner in a couple with kids, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the EITC.

In this article, Employment and the Minimum Wage, Alaska is the focus and demonstrates even in a high growth market, the minimum wage increases unemploymentas shown by this graph:

This graph illustrates that minimum wage increases will affect roughly 7.5% of the total workforce in the U.S.

Even a study ordered by Bill Clinton showed that the minimum wage decrease emloyment. In this study, Statement on The Impact of Federal Minimum Wage Increase on Small Business the minimum wage demonstrates and adverse effect on employment and small business. A few tidbits:

In 1981, the congressionally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1 percent to 3 percent.

A review of the Card study of California by Professor Lowell Taylor of Carnegie Mellon University found that the state minimum wage increase had a major negative effect in low-wage counties and for retail establishments generally. Thus Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago concluded that "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify going against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizeable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."

The fact is that virtually every major study that has ever been done has found significant job losses from an increase in the minimum wage, with the rare exception of those done by Card and Krueger. (Krueger served as chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor under Robert Reich.) A survey of earlier studies by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1983, for example, "found virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed."

Research also shows that the minimum wage increases welfare dependency. A recent study by Peter Brandon of the University of Wisconsin, for example, looked at welfare rates in states that increased their minimum wages in the 1980s with those that did not. In those that did, the average time on welfare was 44% higher than in states that did not. Much of the reason is due to reduced employment opportunities for welfare mothers. In states not raising the minimum wage, half of welfare mothers worked during the years surveyed, while in states that raised the minimum wage only 40% reported working.

Intuitively one would have expected a higher minimum wage to make work more rewarding for those on welfare. However, the interaction of the welfare and tax systems means that some working people are actually worse off after an increase in the minimum wage. Economist Carlos Bonilla of the Employment Policies Institute found a dramatic example of this in California after the minimum wage rose from $3.35 to $4.25. After accounting for the phase-out of AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Medicaid, and food stamps, and federal, state, and local taxes, it turned out that a single parent earning the minimum wage was $1,800 per year worse off after the increase than before.

The case against the minimum wage is strong. In fact, it should be abolished. Even the New York Times, that bastion of liberalism, has said so. As the headline on its January 14, 1987 lead editorial put it: "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00." Indeed, according to Professors Robert Meyer of the University of Chicago and David Wise of Harvard, abolition would actually increase the aggregate income of youth in this country. Raising the minimum wage simply moves us further in the wrong direction.

The studies have been done, and the facts are in. For years the data have shown the minimum wage is bad, bad policy, bad for workers, bad for the economy. Do Democrats learn from history, or facts, or logic? Of course not because the thought of increasing someone's wages, even to the detriment of that worker, the business, and the economy, menas votes. But let's try one more time, to all the liberals, THE MINIMUM WAGE DOESN'T WORK! Unintended consequences, please watch your unintended consequences.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network and The Wide Awakes.

I am starting my own holy war. Alright, it's not really a war, and there's nothing holy about. I'm just tired of all the political correctness crap going on today, and everyone becoming offended by something somebody says somewhere in the world today. GET OVER IT! I'm tired of it!

I'm tired of homosexuals being offended by some guy that makes a comment about anal sex. Hey guys (gays) isn't that what you do? Isn't that the way someone is infected with AIDS most effectively? Isn't that why AIDS is running rampant in the homosexual community, because you guys like to have anal sex? GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of a woman, a heterosexual women, being labeled heteronormative, as if heterosexuality is ABNORMAL! Then, when she declares a woman these days can have a career, kids, and a loving husband, there are some who become offended. Offended of WHAT?! Of TRUTH? Any woman can have those things. It doesn't matter if you're gay, or transexual, or transgender, or ugly, a woman CAN have those things; it's a matter of choice. GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of the media and liberals eliminating the label "Islamic terrorist", as if it's not politically correct. GUESS WHAT GUYS, the MAJORITY of pinheads killing innocent civilians, women and children are ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! These are TERRORISTS that practice the religion of ISLAM and legitimize these terrorist acts by claiming they did it in the name of Islam! THEY ARE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! If Gandhi had preached hate and told his followers to kill innocent civilians, we would call them "Hindu terrorists" or "Gandhi's Gang of Terrorists", anyway, they would be called WHAT THEY ARE! GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of Dan Rather. I'm tired of him constantly whining about how "those documents are real". He knows the "story is true". Hey Dan, THE DOCUMENTS WERE FAKED! EVERYBODY KNOWS IT BUT YOU! And guess what Dan, THE WORLD IS ROUND! You won't fall off the edge if you go to far! You'll just end up in the same place you started! And a few other things as long as we're at it: Elvis is dead, Bush won, and no one knows what the frequency is! GO home and GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of the Pope and the Catholic church. They declare homosexuality is a sin, yet refuse to condemn pedophilia by Catholic priests! Hell, we'll just move them to another parish without telling anyone, so they can molest more kids, and when someone finds out, we'll just pay them off! Fantastic Mr. Pope! I wonder what God will say when you come face-to-face with Him (and very soon at that). So, until you clean up your own house (of God), as far as homosexuality is concerned, GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of Democrats holding up judicial nominations with the filibuster. Something doesn't make sense to me; it takes 51 ayes to confirm a judge, but 60 votes to override a philibuster! In fact, the filibuster was not intended for president's court nominations; it has specific uses and that's NOT one of them. Now the Dems are pissed off the "rule" of the filibuster may be changed to 51 votes for an override. That way, at least a vote will be taken on the nominations. Hey Democrats, YOU LOST, KERRY LOST, BUSH WON! GET OVER IT!

I sat on this article for over a week, and the more I read it the more it pissed me off. It is titled, "In High Gear: The GOP Class War" By Max J. Castro, from Progreso Weekly. Now it says THE GOP CLASS WAR. I began reading this looking for how the right is creating/fighting this "class war." Needless to say, again, it was the left that is creating this illusion with their far-from-truthful talking points.

Here is a bit from the article:

While President Bush tries to sell the American people on a bogus plan to solve a non-existent social security crisis, real and present crises fester unattended or are aggravated by Republican policies.

Health is a prime example. More than 45 million Americans lack insurance coverage today - not in 2042 - and the number keeps rising. Latinos, the fastest growing population in the country, is also the least likely to have coverage. That’s a bad omen for the future. What is Bush proposing to do about this crisis? Nothing.

Let's review. We have Bush pushing a bogus plan to solve a non-existent problem, while he ignores the REAL problems. So, what are these REAL problems? Health insurance is the problem according to the article, right? And Bush is not proposing anything to solve this problem...hmmm. Last time I checked, the government couldn't force the consumer to buy health insurance, car insurance - YES, health insurance - NO. So people are CHOOSING NOT TO BUY health insurance, and somehow that's Bush's fault. Apparently, illegal aliens are the least likely to have health insurance...I wonder why...oh I know, IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!
As I read this, I wondered if this idiot owns or has stock in an insurance company. CONCLUSION: no problem, no class warfare, individuals have chosen NOT to buy health insurance, no government intervention, just as it should be.

Next:

But the health care problem in this country is more than just the tragedy of tens of millions of people who lack a basic human right. It’s an economic calamity as well - for the nation and for families and individuals. The United States spends a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Income (GDP) on health care than any other nation, and the result, as translated into indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, are mediocre compared to other rich countries. Yet costs here are continuing to rise rapidly.

Is this guy claiming health insurance is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT? If you read it again, you'll understand that he's talking about HEALTH CARE, NOT HEALTH INSURANCE. OK, now we have differentiation. The citizens of the US spend A LOT of money on health care AND health insurance, no question. But what is the "health care problem" he's talking about? It seems to me that he is saying HEALTH CARE is a basic human right, and that's the problem here in the US. If this is what he is saying, HE IS LYING. I've never heard of anyone being denied access to HEALTH CARE in this country. Anyone, at anytime, can go to the emergency room at a hospital, or set up an appointment with a doctor and receive health care. So what is the REAL problem he's talking about? I'm still not getting the liberal agenda here.

The problem is not just at the national level either. A recent study found that health costs often spell economic disaster for American families. Half of all bankruptcies in this country result from medical bills. Even more amazing is the finding that points out just how broken the health care system in this country is beyond the issue of having or not having insurance coverage. For many of the people bankrupted by monster medical charges had health insurance coverage.

Now it becomes clear, it's the COST of receiving health care that is the problem. So much of a problem that people file bankruptcy because they can't pay their health care bills. The problem IS NOT HEALTH INSURANCE since the author claims those with health insurance file bankruptcy also.

The study, published in this month’s Health Affairs, estimates two million people annually, including 700,000 dependent children, are affected by medical bankruptcies. "Our study is frightening. Unless you’re Bill Gates you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein of the Harvard Medical School, the lead researcher. Himmelstein said those bankrupted by the high cost of medical care were "average Americans who happened to get sick." Indeed, 75.7 percent of them were insured at the onset of illness. The reality of American health care according to the study is that "even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick."

Here is confirmation that HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is the COST of health care. So what is happening, and who does this author blame?

What are Republicans planning to do to help prevent Americans from suffering a financial catastrophe on top of a serious illness? Worse than nothing: They are getting ready to pass a law to make it harder to declare bankruptcy. Doing the bidding of yet another group of corporate cronies - in this case the credit card companies - Republicans in Congress are hoping to parlay their strengthened dominance in both houses into a victory that consumer advocates say would come at the expense of the public.

Of course! It's the Republican's fault! It's a financial crisis. People who have received health care are faced with an enormous bill, and instead of setting up a payment plan or something like it, they file for bankruptcy. If they choose a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they NEVER HAVE TO PAY THOSE HEALTH CARE BILLS! COOL! But wait! Republicans want to make it harder to file for bankruptcy. HOW DARE THEY! Republicans want to make people PAY THEIR BILLS and be accountable! HOW HORRIBLE!!
But what happens when these people file for bankruptcy and don't pay their bills? That's right, it INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH CARE, making it that much harder for people to pay their raising health care costs, which increases the amount of bankruptcies, which increase the cost of health care... Do you get the picture?

The author goes on to bash Bush's policies in other areas and cite Paul Krugman, of course. But what of his original thesis? What class war is Bush instigating? None that I can see. It is more of the same from these liberals, steal from the rich and give to the poor, income redistribution, socialism, pure and simple.

Ahhh, you can almost smell the spring in the air. Just take a deep breath...ack ack ack cough cough...oh well, here we go again.

Can the left get any nicer, compassionate, and warm and fuzzy?

Boxer to keep claws out during second Bush term

Democrats to maintain filibusters on Bush nominees

Do I feel a hug coming on?

Dean Says Conservatives Are 'Evil'

'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud

Why didn't you tell me it's for "public use"? Of course you can steal my private property from me to help increase your tax base...silly.

A NEW BREED OF TAX TYRANT

Will court curb eminent domain?

Land war goes before Supreme Court

OH MY GOD!!! A REPORTER FROM THE RIGHT?!!! He's gay...and conservative?...it must be Bush's fault...somehow...

Gannongate: It's Worse Than You Think

The Liberals are right. Let's model our labor force after the Europeans. They're OBVIOUSLY doing something right over there. Good wages, fewer hours, lots of vacation time...sounds good to me.

French jobless rate hits five-year high

German jobless rate at new record

Thomas Jefferson on private property:

The right to procure property and to use it for one's own enjoyment is essential to the freedom of every person, and our other rights would mean little without these rights of property ownership.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

"Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken." --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810. ME 12:383

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

Private property was held as a sacred right by Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers. It was a sharp ideological contrast to the belief held by the Europeans at the time. Freedom, true freedom, was born from the knowledge that the property you owned was yours, and no one else’s; no one, no government, could take your property by will, by law, or by force. This was a defining moment in our short history as a nation. It differentiated us from the rest of the world.

Yet today, we are facing one of the biggest fights in our country’s history over this very basic, very sacred, right to private property. It is a fight not waged against the left or the right but a combination of both whose lust for power and money has corrupted their interpretation of our constitutional right to private property.

Today, politicians and developers are hand-in-hand, utilizing the government’s power of eminent domain to take private property from a citizen and then turn that property over to a private developer, all for the reason of increasing the tax base. There is no reasonability test, no assurance that taxes collected will be increased, no consideration for our constitution, all for economic development.

It is occurring all over this country, and now the most important case is before the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London. From The Boston Globe, by Jeff Jacoby, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:

‘‘Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,’’ he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.”
When Bullock argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that’s a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what’s wrong with trying to ‘‘build it up and get more jobs?’’ If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can’t it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn’t that enough to satisfy the Constitution’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement?
It is a depressing colloquy for anyone who believes that property rights are fundamental to liberty. But there is worse to come. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use.
‘‘For example, a Motel 6,’’ O’Connor says. ‘‘A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?’’
‘‘Yes, that’s OK,’’ Horton replies.
Justice Antonin Scalia: ‘‘You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?’’
Horton: ‘‘Yes, if it’s a significant amount.’’

Got that? Anyone’s property can be taken by eminent domain if the government identifies another owner who could use it to earn a higher profit. New London isn’t alone in making such an outrageous claim. In planning commissions and redevelopment authorities nationwide, the Fifth Amendment’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement has been ignored for years. The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life. The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners is riding on their decision.

Here in Aurora, Illinois, we have a candidate running for mayor, Richard Irvin, who has continually called for utilizing eminent domain to take private property and then give that property to private developers, all for economic development and increasing the tax base. He has called these properties “economically blighted”. We also have an alderperson, a supporter of Mr. Irvin, who has called for the use of "amortization of non-conforming uses." That means she wants the City government to mandate the down zoning of particular properties if the homeowners fail to do so after a certain amount of time, using the idea of financial compensation the amount of which slowly diminishes as time goes bye.

I had emailed Mr. Irvin and asked him about his stance on private property and the use of eminent domain. I did this because Mr. Irvin is an attorney and this issue concerns the constitution. Mr. Irvin did not respond to my email, but a campaign worker did on his behalf:

Richard Irvin shared your email with me regarding the use of eminent domain in Aurora. I requested an opportunity to respond and with Mr. Irvin’s approval I would like to offer the following response.

Your concern about 5th Amendment Rights and “takings” of personal property are indeed basic and protected rights but I could not disagree more with your characterization of the use of eminent domain as “reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and constitutionally wrong”. Your argument is fundamentally wrong in that you are relying on only one aspect of the workings of our federal common law system. Both “law” and “precedent” must be considered by the courts in determining any ruling. It is the precedent component that justifies the use of eminent domain for the uses that Richard Irvin has described.

The following text is from the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Kermit L. Hall., and is a good summary of the precedent that allows this use:

Case - Berman v. Parker1954 decided by vote of 9 to 0. A Washington D.C. urban renewal statute allowed the city to condemn land and sell it to private developers, who would redevelop it according to the renewal plan. The plan included not only slum eradication but also beautification projects. A landowner challenged the statute , mainly on the ground that, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, the condemnation was not “for public use.” The Owner argued unsuccessfully that there was no public use because the land was sold to a private developer and for the purpose of beautification. The Supreme Court upheld the statute.

The decision is important in two ways. Firstly, it established that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose, for which government may regulate and condemn land. This principle has encouraged increased governmental intervention to achieve aesthetic and environmental goals. Second, Berman made clear that the phrase “public use” in the Takings Clause did not mean land condemned had to remain in governmental ownership or be used physically by the public. The Court seemed to hold that eminent domain might be used to advance any goal that government could pursue under any of its powers. Subsequent decisions have confirmed this broad understanding of Berman. Thus, under the Takings Clause, “public use” means only public purpose.

That is the technical/legal side of the issue and I can assure you that Mr. Irvin did not incorporate eminent domain into his economic plan without regard for the law and more importantly the probability of practical and effective use of that tool. Hundreds of millions of dollars of redevelopment have been done in major cities such as Indianapolis utilizing eminent domain as the catalyst for that revitalization. Richard has meet with attorneys, financiers, and the mayors who have successfully utilized eminent domain. This is far from reckless, it is actually a common and proven strategy.

We, citizens of Aurora, have become accustom to avoiding legal confrontation as a result of our timid legal council and lack of mayoral leadership in this area. There is clearly a leadership vacuum and I believe Richard Irvin is the one to fill that void. He is creative with his solutions and has the courage to see them through. It is clear that none of the other candidates has anything comparable to offer and the issue of eminent domain and economic development are a perfect example. Since Richard Irvin revealed his economic plan not only have the other candidates taken much of it as their own but they city itself through the AEDC has endorsed the use of eminent domain as part of the latest downtown strategy. Richard leads on this and many other issues.

One problem with comparing this case with Aurora is that in Berman v. Parker some of the conditions of these properties do not exist here in Aurora. For example, the area to be redeveloped was described thusly: 64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repair, 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.3% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, and 83.8% lacked central heating. This is hardly indicative of the situation here in Aurora. Aurora does have some vacant buildings, are they blighted? No. Are they bringing in the highest amount is taxes possible for that parcel? Probably not. Is that worth the price of violating someone’s constitutional right? Of course not.

Do the ends justify the means? Is violating someone’s right and taking their private property worth the potential of increased taxes? What happened with fiscal responsibility of government? Where does it stop? What about “intellectual property”? How soon will it be before someone claims they can put your ideas to better use and utilizes eminent domain to take your right to that intellectual property away from you?

What “unintended consequences” may we see if Kelo v. New London is upheld? Property values will decrease due to the “risk” of owning property, therefore, the property taxes will decrease also. This reduction in property value and the resulting decrease in property taxes will motivate governments to increase those taxes to offset those losses. The knowledge that property can be taken from you at any point in time will reduce property ownership. Developers will reap huge financial rewards by surveying existing neighborhoods for viable development properties and then taking them by force for development. There would be no limit to the number of times a particular property can be taken and redeveloped, as long as there is a potentially higher financial gain.

The left loves to talk about how the rich are getting richer while the poor are becoming poorer. In the case of eminent domain, if the Supreme Court upholds Kelo v. New London, rich developers and politicians will become richer while they walk all over the private property rights of those who have worked hard enough to own property and begin to live the American Dream, all with the help, consent, good tidings, and good riddance of the United States Supreme Court.

Maybe a Taco Bell would bring in higher taxes than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's house...

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes and Blogger News Network.