The NEW American Dream-Unemployment

Growing up we all realized that the possibilities were endless if we had the drive & determination to make our dreams come true. We lived in a country that was the envy of all of the World, that beacon of light on the hill. However today’s country seems to be becoming a dark contrast to this once great nation of patriots.  We are now living our lives by new drastically different standards.

   If I asked you  if you could live on less, not much but a little bit less, have everything you need, free healthcare, food assistance & didn’t have to work, what would you say?  This is the NEW American Dream Obama has created thru unemployment. Let me give an example based on some real world #’s.  A relative of mine lost his job due to cutbacks & was laid off.  He was roughly making $1200 a paycheck for every two weeks.  After taxes & his healthcare plan with the company he took home approximately $950.   He had to pay for child care while both he & his wife worked around $250 a month, so $125 a week.   Now today on unemployment he collects  approximately $400/week & qualifies for a free healthcare program through the state & pays for no child care since home.  Would you go back to work for less $?

 

  Now let me ask you this question, when does income redistribution become blatantly criminal?  When we are taking 50% away from a 1%er who is making 3 million a year, to give it to the government to pay for all of the entitlement programs.  I am from the great state of WI, however I am very happy I am now living in Texas where conservatism & what is stands for  is still very much a part of what makes this one of the best & stable states in the U.S & one of the only that is not struggling like the rest of the country.  I know the bleeding hearts of the world are asking what is wrong with you, why don’t you want to cover these people?

1. Medicaid is bankrupt & the only way it continues is higher taxes, so how can we take money from it to add yet another entitlement healthcare plan? By taking even more away from the BIG BAD RICH SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE

2. Those who are unemployed with ZERO incentive to go back to work, why should we cover them?

3. I don’t believe in taking from the rich & giving to the poor. It is wrong on every level, it sets the example, as to why succeed only to have your hard work taken away & given to those less fortunate.

4. When you take Haiti for example, we are nation of givers & are some of the most charitable people on the planet. Why can’t the government in their respective states use funds to help generate donations for such programs? This way it is voluntary & tax-deductible. 

5. Anything the government runs costs more than the private sector, it has been proven since the very 1st entitlement program, so start with costs, not control.

    Back to the NEW American Dream.  I personally would like 99 weeks off, I could go back to school, qualify for all sorts of government-run plans here soon & no more stress of having to work.  The only way I would ever collect unemployment is between the time it takes to find a new job & that means even it is less money, I wasn’t raised to live off the government on welfare or unemployment, but I can see why those individuals are so happy with Obama, there is no longer any reason to work, they are living the dream.

                         Let’s please wake up,

                                    Clinton H

Racism being fueled by the media & politicians?

  I would love to see what Martin Luther King Jr would have to say about today’s society & how far we’ve come, yet how far we are from his dream.  When he 1st said those incendiary words “I have a dream!”,  it must have seemed to all who followed him, that it would become a reality. Has it? 

Recently the Tea Partiers have been labeled as blatant bigots & racists. I even saw one headline, Tea Party The New KKK?  This sort of thing is the reason why we will never be free of racism, so as long as we can be controlled by the mainstream media & all forms of agenda driven politics.   Why? Because if you are unhappy with your government & want to speak out & were thinking of showing up at a Tea Party Rally, you might think twice now that you will be considered a racist right? 

  At this particular rally Three Democratic congressmen, all black say they heard racial slurs & epithets while they walked through thousands of angry protesters.  Why do you think they decided to walk through the crowd of protesters? My guess is they wanted or hoped they would hear such slurs & epithets, when it didn’t happen they manufactured it.  

Breitbart , the same guy who uncovered the wonderful work ACORN was doing has pledged $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone provides proof of the epithets. Breitbart posted two columns on his Web site saying the claims were fabricated. Both led with a 48-second YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Some of the group were videotaping the booing crowd(So why didn’t any of their video show up on YouTube as proof?).  “It didn’t happen,” said Breitbart, who wasn’t there. “This is 2010. Even a racist is media-savvy enough not to yell the N-word.”  Breitbart asked why the epithet was not captured by the black lawmakers’ cameras, and why nobody reacted as if they had heard the slur. He also questioned whether the epithets could have been shouted by liberals planted in the crowd. Sounds crazy, but again why do you think they chose to walk through an angry crowd?

   I am not saying the overall tension & hatred for where this administration is taking us was not palpable,  because I am sure it was. A lot of people are very upset & yet the media keeps doing it’s best to distract us & keep us from seeing what is really happening.  Which is it behooves them to have everyone believe if you disagree with this administration, Obama & his agenda, then you must be racist. Sure is funny how he won the election in a landslide in a predominately white America huh?

    “Yes We Can” says Barack Obama,  a lot of African-American friends of mine as much as I love them, liken this very much to MLK & put Obama on the same level. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact I have several black friends who said they voted for Obama because he was black & they have never voted prior to this election. How is this not racist? If I said I have never voted because I would only vote for a person of a certain skin color, it makes me a racist.  Those African-Americans who are speaking out against this administration are being called Uncle Tom’s & traitors to their race? Seriously? 

   What we all need to do is come together because we want to.  If the media is fueling racism, then put out the fire by turning it off & having a discussion.  We can fulfill Martin Luther King’s dream someday, but it will only happen if we don’t let the media tell us how to feel & when to feel it.  Don’t get me wrong I know it exists on the conservative side as well, in case you’re wondering & when I see it, I turn it off.  I judge based on my morals & beliefs  & think the U.S will always be the greatest country in the world if we don’t let our government sell it & their agenda to us with no thoughts of our own. 

                    The country is free, is your mind?

                                                Clinton H

Texas gun case could bring down Health Care Law

A Texas high school student’s decision to bring a .38-caliber handgun to school in 1992 could end up at the center of the legal fight over President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan.

Alfonso Lopez Jr.’s arrest at Edison High School in San Antonio set in motion a legal battle that may prove crucial to 13 state attorneys general fighting the new law.

Lopez, a senior when he was arrested for handgun possession in March 1992, ended up facing federal charges of violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. But the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, threw out his conviction five years later on the grounds that Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Constitution when it approved the 1990 law, which makes it a violation of federal law to possess a firearm in a school zone.

In filing a lawsuit last week challenging the new health care law’s mandate that everyone must have health insurance, the 13 state attorneys general—including Greg Abbott of Texas—cited the same legal reasoning that went into the Lopez ruling.

At issue in both cases is the Constitution’s commerce clause, which limits the regulatory powers of Congress to matters involving interstate commerce. In the Lopez decision, conservatives on the court led by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that the 1990 gun law was unconstitutional because it had nothing to do with commerce between states.

Upholding the federal government’s right to control guns in school zones would give Congress “a general police power of the sort retained by the states,” Rehnquist wrote for the majority.

That’s almost exactly the argument the states are making now in a lawsuit filed March 23.

Abbott and the other 12 state attorneys general say that health care does not meet the legal definition of interstate commerce, rendering illegal the congressional mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance.

“In the past 15 years the Supreme Court has scaled back Congress when they’ve tried to inject themselves into purely state matters,” said one of the 13, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, in an interview on MSNBC.

The Lopez ruling was one of two Cox cited, saying it was a case where the federal government “tried to criminalize purely state behavior within a state.”

Prior to the Lopez ruling, the Supreme Court had for 60 years mostly followed the lead of Congress, ruling that congressional claims of regulatory power were valid under the Constitution. With the Lopez ruling, court watchers predicted a wholesale scaling back of such claims, clipping the wings of Congress to legislate in any area it wanted.

In the 2000 case of U.S. v. Morrison, the justices knocked down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that gave victims of rape, domestic violence and other gender-motivated crimes the right to sue attackers in federal court. Rehnquist also authored the opinion.

Still, the attorneys general are hedging their legal bets. They also argue that the health care law’s insurance mandate for individuals violates the 10th Amendment, which states that powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Critics of the lawsuit say the U.S. health care system is national in scope, transcending state lines, and that extending benefits to the uninsured is an economic activity that requires the participation of all in the insurance pool.

If Obama administration lawyers can establish a connection between the health care law’s goals and interstate commerce, the high court’s conservatives may be hard-pressed to rule against Congress, skeptics say.

“The courts are not supposed to overturn the will of the elected representatives of people; that is something that’s generally anathema to conservatives,” said Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University. “Conservatives may not like the health care plan, but they don’t want to be put in a position of judicial activism, overturning what the people’s elected representatives put in place.”

Other experts see the lawsuit as having a very good chance of success, especially since Congress entered uncharted waters in approving health care.

The lawsuit “is definitely not frivolous,” said professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University in an interview with the National Law Journal. “Anyone who says it is—and I know a lot of law professors have—they’re whistling past the graveyard. Anything that has never been done before has no precedent for it.

And this (health care reform law) has never been done before.”

Since the Texas case was decided, Rehnquist has died and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote who sided with the majorities in the 1995 and 2000 rulings, has retired. In their places are two solid conservative votes, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Last year, moderate-liberal Justice David Souter resigned and was replaced by a like-minded jurist, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Fingers Crossed that This brings down the House, literally.

                                           Clinton H

Doctor says “You support Obama, go elsewhere”

MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care “elsewhere.”

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

I personally applaud his stance on this, he is one of many doctors in this country whom are unhappy with what the health care law is going to do to the way health care is handled in America. Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida‘s College of Medicine.  Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is “trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation,” Allen said.

“But this is pushing the limit,” he said.
 

The limit was pushed when Obama forced this legislation down our throats & now has his hand around our throats in a tax chokehold.  Overall so far, three patients have complained, but most have been “overwhelmingly supportive” of his position.
“Physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States.”

I can see why even the most conservative will still see this as wrong, however what else can one do to help people understand? Tell me your thoughts, too far or about time someone takes a stance?

                                                             Clinton H

Democrat Hank Johnson Thinks Guam can Capsize!

All I can say is this guy voted for the health care bill. Johnson serves on the House Armed Services and Judiciary committees. Does that not scare anyone else? He thinks islands float for God’s sake.  If I was the Admiral, I could not have had the decorum he had. I would have literally looked around & asked, what? You are not serious?  Do you honestly believe an island will tip up like your illustrating with your hands & capsize like the Titanic?

This is beyond embarrassing.

Clinton H