tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4038033220078212042024-03-13T16:31:53.411-05:00A Traditional Life LivedMichelle MooreMichellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.comBlogger789125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-44102597829383897982016-01-23T22:21:00.000-06:002016-01-23T22:50:35.327-06:00Relying on that "conservative cred" will likely get you stabbed in the face. Again.So many people calling out Trump for his lack of conservative cred. I don't disagree with many points made and as I haven't made up my mind who I will vote for (or if I will vote at all), I will listen to rational facts. However, I won't be lectured to and I won't cower in the face of those who think they know better than...well anyone who thinks differently about what is right for the country. In this decision, as in all decisions I've ever made in my life, I will chose for myself, based on the facts I as I see them. BUT, I do think the below beautifully spells out the problem with the argument that so many are making: (<a href="http://www.steynonline.com/7432/the-world-they-made" target="_blank">Mark Steyn</a>)
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #373e4d; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="2f7v-0-0">"In contrast to the ebb and flow of eternally shifting multiparty systems, America has a rigid, inflexible two-party choice:</span><span data-offset-key="91fos-0-0"><br data-text="true" /></span><span data-offset-key="9srao-0-0">One party is supposed to be the party of big government, the other the party of small government. When the Big Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger, and, when the Small Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #373e4d; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
One party is supposed to be the party of social liberalism, the other the party of social conservatism. When the Socially Liberal Party is in power, the country gets more liberal, and, when the Socially Conservative Party is in power, the country gets more liberal.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #373e4d; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="1mb5g-0-0">One party is supposed to be the party of foreign-policy doves, the other the party of foreign-policy hawks. When the doves are in power, America loses wars, and, when the hawks are in power, America loses wars."</span></blockquote>
And that, my friends is the problem. You may well be right that Trump (or Cruz or Fiorina or whatever candidates you hate) are "no goddamn conservative candidate" but I would argue (to use the hated Hillary Clinton line) -what difference does it make?
As a tiny "one", of thousands who stood on the street, phone banked, organized events and fundraisers, and sacrificed more than I care to think about these long past 9 years, what did we really get? High unemployment, government controlled health insurance, unmitigated government overreach that only gets more "reachy" and a quality of life that is NOTHING compared to the time before Obama.....all the things the anti-Trumpers accuse Trump of supporting. The problem with that argument? These are all things we already have. Don't you see that? They argue Trump is no conservative because he has/did/does/will support these things, all the while, the "true conservatives" in the House and Senate have done no <b>real </b>thing to stop or even slow the tidal wave. In fact most of them support it in one way or another. So, the argument is you can't be for that guy because he is for those things, yet none of the elected conservatives are doing anything either? Well that's stupid. It disgusts me how much all those people did and sacrificed and worked for-getting people elected, trying to make them accountable, only to be sold down the river over and over again. The argument of the "smart thinkers" is this time it will be different if you'd just stop supporting the idiot. Well, sorry to break it to you, but the people don't agree. It would make me laugh....if it didn't stab me in the face. Again.<br />
Someone I once knew said it's not a sprint, it's a marathon and that's right it is. But when people get screwed over and over, at some point you just quit caring. People out there in the regular world have jobs and struggle everyday. They have aging parents, dependant "kids" in their 20's (who struggle to even leave the nest, let alone stay out), failing small businesses, health problems, financial problems whatever. They don't have time to sit around and judge the conservative cred of someone. They want someone who they feel will get things done. I would venture most of them even know they might not be the right things, but what has striving to get the "right" candidate to do the right thing gotten them? They don't care about saving the party, or conservatism for that matter. They care about saving their own asses. Yes, you heard me right, <b>they don't care what you think</b>. Liberal policies and government overreach and illegal immigration have gotten so far out of control, there is nothing but panic out here in the "rest of the world". Some days it's real panic about feeding your entire family with what you can scrape out of the pantry to make a meal tonight. Some days it's panic about the checking account with 5 bucks and the $700 mortgage. They don't give a shit about conservative cred on those days. And frankly, why should they? Again I ask, what has fighting for conservatism actually gotten them these long last 8 years?<br />
No President will alone save us and people who are rabid in their support of ANY candidate, in my opinion, are delusional. Presidents are people, not gods. The right person could possibly begin to turn the tide and possibly not. It could be too late. Everyone should get behind the candidate you think will do that, but to admonish others as wrong for having lost faith in those with "true conservative cred" is a mistake on your part. Until you can point to something real and far reaching that hasn't been compromised or bastardized by the very conservative cred you want to preserve so badly, don't talk to me about your bullshit.<br />
I don't know if Trump is the right candidate. I don't know if it's Cruz or Carson or Fiorina or god forbid, Jeb Bush.....because there is NO FAITH in the system we have been given. None. I don't think any of them are the right candidate truth be told, because I don't believe there is such a leader these days. But if one of them wants to prove me wrong, I'm totally cool with that.<br />
Reagan is dead. The 80's are dead. It's time to stop being wistful for what was and concentrate on what is. These are new times and politicians with "true conservative cred" have left us to wither on the vine for too many years. And don't take this post mean I don't support any of the candidates that call themselves "true conservative(s)" (though I'm more of a libertarian), I do. But I don't support someone just because they walk around with a big conservative button on their shirt or because some TV person told me to. I support the candidate that doesn't just hand out platitudes and pats on the head. Those guys can suck an egg.<br />
So....good luck to the winner and do something worthwhile this time, ok? In the meantime, I'm going to spend the afternoon with my beautiful granddaughter tomorrow. She's 5 and when she says she's going to do something, she does it. Now that's some cred I can get behind.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-17165294083295068752015-03-12T11:57:00.000-05:002015-03-12T11:57:32.366-05:00Well, your glorious Net Neutrality Rules have been released......I've just started reading through the '<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/12/here-are-all-400-pages-of-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/" target="_blank">Net Neutrality Rules</a>" this morning and you know what's funny? All this BS and RIGHT IN THE FIRST SECTION I find this:<br />
<blockquote>
"Likewise, innovation at the edge moves forward unabated. For example, 2010 was the first year that the majority of Netflix customers received their video content via online streaming rather than via DVDs in red envelopes. Today, Netflix sends the most peak downstream traffic in North America of any company. Other innovative service providers have experienced extraordinary growth— Etsy reports that it has grown from $314 million in merchandise sales in 2010 to $1.35 billion in merchandise sales in 2013. And, just as importantly, new kinds of innovative businesses are busy being born. In the video space alone, in just the last sixth months, CBS and HBO have announced new plans for streaming their content free of cable subscriptions; DISH has launched a new package of channels that includes ESPN, and Sony is not far behind; and Discovery Communications founder John Hendricks has announced a new over-the-top service providing bandwidth-intensive programming. This year, Amazon took home two Golden Globes for its new series “Transparent.”</blockquote>
Hmmm, all that before Net Neutrality and government interference.......what are they protecting against again????? It's so funny that in their own paper they tout how the Internet has grown and been wildly successful and in the same breath talk about how the government must step in. Yep, if you wanna ruin something, get the government involved.<br />
<br />
More to come.......Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-52319711418066687372015-02-02T13:37:00.001-06:002015-02-02T13:37:43.213-06:005.46 million foreign work permits issued since 2009If you're looking for a major reason why labor participation remains at 37 year lows for the entirety of the Obama Administration, you might want to take a look at their <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397713/report-federal-government-issued-nearly-55-million-work-permits-foreign-nationals-2009" target="_blank">shadow immigration</a> racket.
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
More than 5.46 million foreign nationals received work permits from the federal government since 2009, according to a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies. Data uncovered from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency reveal that approximately 982,000 work permits were given to illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals unqualified for admission, most of whom crossed the border without inspection. USCIS is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security responsible for issuing work permits and processing applications related to President Obama’s executive action on immigration. On Tuesday, the Senate is scheduled to vote on a bill that funds DHS, while blocking funding that would allow USCIS to implement the president’s executive action. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The remarkable number of work permits granted by the federal government to law-breaking aliens better explains how all net jobs growth since 2007 has gone to immigrants. The government issued approximately 1.7 million work permits since 2009 to aliens whose status was not known, not recorded, or not disclosed by USCIS, according to the report. The report says employment is not authorized by law for approximately 1.2 million immigrants who collected work permits while having a temporary visa status. And the data show that approximately 1,200 new work permits went to unlawful entrants who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documentation, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-67547637584550690852015-01-30T16:13:00.000-06:002015-01-30T16:58:09.509-06:00State Run Media sad because they are treated like State Run MediaApparently the media <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/at-retreat-dem-staffers-escort-reporters-to-restroom-201895.html">doesn't like it</a> when their message is tightly controlled by outside forces.......except when they are totally cool with it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Reporters covering the House Democrats' retreat in Philadelphia this week are having a much different experience than when they’re on their home turf on Capitol Hill.
Reporters are being escorted to and from the restroom and lobby and are being barred from entering the hotel outside of scheduled events, even if they've been invited by a member of Congress.
During Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks at the retreat Friday, reporters were required to have a staff member, usually a junior member of the press team, escort them when going to the bathroom or to the lobby. The filing center for reporters was at a separate hotel from where the retreat was taking place, so access was limited to members of Congress specifically made available to the press</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.................
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Peters said he was told by a staffer they were being escorted to prevent them from talking to members of Congress.
</blockquote>
Basically we had Congress slamming their iron fist as to what information reporters were going to get from the Democrat Representatives......sort of like what the media does with the general public.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-41517471676025528672015-01-30T15:36:00.001-06:002015-01-30T15:36:19.146-06:00GOP goes after all White House communications with IRS Well hopefully they've taken better care of their hard drives than Lois Lerner. Senate GOP is going straight <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/senate-gop-to-obama-turn-over-communications-irs/">to the source</a> since they didn't get anywhere prior:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Senate Republicans on Thursday asked President Obama to turn over all communications he and his aides have had with the IRS since 2010, hoping to find out whether the tax collection agency shared private taxpayer information with political operatives at the White House.<br />
<br />
The request, made in a letter obtained by The Washington Times, is signed by Senate Finance Chairman Orrin G. Hatch and all 13 other Republicans on the committee, and is addressed specifically to Mr. Obama, saying they want to see if his employees broke the law by acquiring or sharing private information.</blockquote>
We'll see. One thing we can be sure of, now that the GOP controls both houses, there are no excuses for not getting to the bottom of this thing.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-85628214149508315092015-01-29T23:11:00.002-06:002015-01-29T23:11:13.556-06:00FCC redefines words, thinks that makes the Internet fasterToday the FCC <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/29/fcc-increases-broadband-speed-threshold">put the final touches</a> on their latest hair-brained idea for broadband in America. They have redefined "Broadband" to mean 25Mbps for downloads and 1Mbps to 3Mbps for uploads. Previously "Broadband" was defined as anything at or above 4 megabits per second. See what they did there? They gave "Broadband" a new definition. Now service providers won't be able to meet this definition and the government will have to intervene. This is just one more step towards Net Neutrality, which I have <a href="http://www.atraditionallifelived.com/search?q=net+neutrality">written about</a> several times on these pages. (You can watch my interview with former <a href="http://www.atraditionallifelived.com/2010/07/interview-from-right-online-2010-robert.html">FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell</a>)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a 3-2 vote, the commission approved a measure that increases the minimum standard for broadband speed, giving the agency more power to force internet service providers to improve their service.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The definition of broadband is set to be raised from 4 megabits per second (Mbps) to 25Mbps for downloads and 1Mbps to 3Mbps for uploads.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With that speed as the benchmark, significantly fewer Americans have access to high-speed broadband. Under the previous definition, 19 million Americans were without access; the new definition means that 55 million Americans – 17% of the population – now do not have access to high-speed broadband, according to the FCC’s 2015 Broadband Progress Report, which is in the final editing process but was cited at the hearing.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, our FCC is charged with making sure broadband “is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion”. So, if the service you are paying the same amount for today is no longer broadband tomorrow, who do you think will pay for the new and ever increasing speed demands? And, if you're dissatisfied with your cable provider today, what exactly does changing the definition of broadband do to improve that relationship? While the US might be ranked 25th in broadband speed globally, changing the definition of the word "broadband" does nothing to improve access and encourage innovation. Do you ever wonder why companies like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix">Netflix </a>and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google">Google </a>aren't founded in other countries? Our open and free markets create an environment where a couple of folks sitting around in their basement can have an idea they can take to market all by themselves. If we want better Internet in this country we don't need more intrusive and strangling regulation by the government, we need less. With moves like this and Net Neutrality you only need look at the massive innovation of the <i>telephone </i>over a 50 year period (there was basically none) to see what will happen if the Internet falls under Title II control. It wasn't until the government loosened their stranglehold on the telecommunications industry that we got things like provider choice, call waiting, call forwarding and the like. While these may even seem like dinosaur inventions these days, keep in mind this same <i><b>deregulation </b></i>also gave you that shiny cell phone you're reading this article on.<br />
<br />
Changing definitions doesn't bring the Internet to more people, it doesn't make it faster or better or cheaper. Changing definitions only give the government a stronger hold on one of the last truly free and open market places we have left in this country.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-7061480285195858352015-01-29T19:19:00.000-06:002015-01-29T19:35:32.522-06:00The Science is Settled-Gun Ownership Reduces Crime<span id="goog_1010957030"></span><span id="goog_1010957031"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3-K_PAVTpXo/VMrblLdR97I/AAAAAAAAAnc/1yvy_5Tv3QE/s1600/Guncontrol_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3-K_PAVTpXo/VMrblLdR97I/AAAAAAAAAnc/1yvy_5Tv3QE/s1600/Guncontrol_2.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
A post over at <a href="http://bearingarms.com/fbi-confirms-gun-sales-violent-crime/">bearingarms.com</a> highlights newly released information for the first 6 months of crime data <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/preliminary-crime-stats-for-january-june-2014-show-decreases" target="_blank">from the FBI</a> which shows violent crimes are reducing as gun ownership is increasing. That is great news. The science is settled-gun ownership lowers violent crimes!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Violent crimes reported for January through June of 2014 were down 4.6 percent from the same time period in 2013. All of the offenses in the violent crime category—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery—showed decreases. And the number of property crimes during the same time period decreased 7.5 percent, with all three offenses—burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft—showing declines.</blockquote>
Society is much safer as a result of people legally owning and learning to use firearms to defend themselves. As gun ownership becomes more commonplace, those that choose to break the law have a much greater chance of running across someone willing to defend themselves as not. This is a good thing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Guzc9iDfK1U/VMrbrvbbNjI/AAAAAAAAAnk/jV9galn-I1E/s1600/Guncontrol_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Guzc9iDfK1U/VMrbrvbbNjI/AAAAAAAAAnk/jV9galn-I1E/s1600/Guncontrol_1.jpg" height="261" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-16042956471886817982015-01-28T11:15:00.000-06:002015-01-28T11:15:33.330-06:00MO State Auditor Tom Schweich *probably* Announcing run for Governor TodayMissouri's favorite state Auditor is making a "<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/schweich-to-make-major-announcement-wednesday/article_fdaac3c9-7f87-5afc-bfda-2cc5ca738952.html" target="_blank">major announcement</a>" today at 4pm on the campus of UMSL. Everyone in the state believes this will kick-off his run for governor. I like Schweich. He has been a good auditor and is pursuing action against the municipal courts system here in MO as part of an on-going effort to clean those systems up. (While I am sure there is more to come on that front, it looks like our municipal courts system <a href="http://hennessysview.com/2014/12/09/heres-whats-happening-muni-courts-front/" target="_blank">has some 'splainin to do</a>.)<br />
<br />
I wish Tom good luck in what I know will be a tough campaign. If you have a minute to stop by his press conference today, please do!Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-42421948316961904992015-01-27T15:33:00.001-06:002015-01-27T15:33:44.658-06:00Gun haters hatin' on guns againThe gun confiscators are at it again....... <a href="http://eaglerising.com/14383/sandy-hook-commission-says-screw-constitution-confiscate-guns/#hSpMDM6RMkWvMgQo.99" target="_blank">Sandy Hook Commission says Screw the Constitution - Confiscate Guns!</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just a little over a week ago the Sandy Hook Commission presented its recommendations to Communist Governor Daniel Malloy (D-CT). Among those recommendations were to confiscate all guns that had the capacity to fire more than without reloading. They further showed their disregard for the law by stating that it wasn't their job to determine constitutionality.</blockquote>
<br />
Of course it is not their job to determine the Constitutionality......ugh.<br />
<br />Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-84704015754893329122015-01-27T09:27:00.001-06:002015-01-27T09:27:09.155-06:00Rick Perry creates 1.169 million jobs, Obama takes all the creditFrom <a href="http://www.aei.org/publication/texas-great-american-job-machine-solely-responsible-1m-net-us-job-increase-since-2007/" target="_blank">AEI</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #181818; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">It’s a pretty impressive story of how</span><strong style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #181818; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> job creation in just one state – Texas – has made such a significant contribution to the 1.169 million net increase in total US employment</strong><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #181818; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> (+1,444,290 Texas jobs minus the 275,290 non-Texas job loss) in the seven year period between the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 and December 2014. The other 49 states and the District of Columbia together employ about 275,000 fewer Americans than at the start of the recession seven years ago, while the Lone Star State has added more than 1.25 million payroll jobs and more than 190,000 non-payroll jobs (primarily self-employed and farm workers).</span></blockquote>
I have to agree with <a href="http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/26/rick-perrys-texas-responsible-us-job-creation/" target="_blank">Red State</a> on this, if the Great One wants credit for these numbers, he should stop pushing the majority of folks to disability and food stamps. Maybe work on creating an environment that encourages this kind of job growth nationwide?Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-1655321312803100312015-01-26T13:53:00.002-06:002015-01-26T13:59:52.627-06:00A Break from Pot Talk to talk about Pot.....Purusing the headlines this morning I found an article (<a href="http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/184105/what-others-say-recreational-marijuana-points-in-wrong-direction/" target="_blank">Here </a>in it's entirety if you are so inclined.) in the Missourian in which the writer seems to have a problem with legalizing the "devil weed". As you all know we are going to explore our options and discuss legalization in Missouri over the next week or so, but I felt it important to point out the fallacies I find every single time with some of the arguments the writer makes.<br />
<br />
So, let's get at it......<br />
<blockquote >
To supporters of recreational marijuana use, we pose this question: What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel a need to get high?
....................................................................................................................................
Among the most frequent responses are:
Marijuana is no worse than alcohol. That’s true. We recall a story last year with the headline: “Alcohol is still the deadliest drug in the United States, and it’s not even close.” Alcohol abuse is a scourge in our society. Consequences include accidents, fatalities, family breakups, job losses, health problems, legal issues and more.</blockquote>
To the opponents, I pose this question:<br />
<ul>
<li>What is so unsatisfying or unfulfilling about your life that you feel the need to eat ice cream? or watch that soap opera? or read 50 Shades of Grey? or have an affair? or eat fast food everyday at lunch? or meddle in the choices of grown adults?</li>
<ul>
<li>And conversely, what is so great about your life that makes you think a few drinks at happy hour with friends is ok? or that glass of wine with dinner? why do you go to the gym?</li>
</ul>
</ul>
I think you can see where I am going with this. There are choices that people make everyday in their lives. Folks choose if they want to be happy, healthy and wise. And, they choose what that means to them. As a freedom lover you do not get to pick and choose what freedoms another is allowed to have. You don't have to <i>like</i> or even approve of someone's choices, but they are their choices to make. To the extent that there is no harm extended to you, you do not have the power to choose for another. Otherwise, you also like Obamacare and the EPA.<br />
<blockquote>
Alcohol prohibition in the United States has been tried; it failed. A comparison to alcohol is not a compelling reason to legalize another mood-altering substance, which experience has shown creates problems and is difficult, if not impossible, to repeal.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
It’s my business if I want to get high; I’m not hurting anyone else. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
That may be true for a person who lives in a vacuum. Otherwise, it is classic denial.
A person who is impaired cannot be completely involved in activities with a spouse, children or friends. Impaired judgment impedes the ability to follow instructions, interact with co-workers or complete routine tasks.
Getting high is about self, not about others.</blockquote>
To this silly argument, I would just like to point out, you already deal Every. Single. Day. with what might be hundreds of people that are high. Maybe you think this is part of the problem with society. That's fine. You are entitled to think whatever you want, but again, legalizing it or not does not change this fact. The only thing you accomplish by keeping cannabis illegal is possibly making criminals out of people who are doing ZERO harm to you or yours. People you like, who clean your house, care for your children, are your BEST friends; all for no other reason than <i>you </i>disagree with how they spend their alone time. You are ok with their doors being kicked in. Their dogs shot. Their families torn apart. Their lives ruined. You will sit in judgement of how much is too much or too little involvement with families, children and spouses, their ability to do their job or take on tasks, yet I guarantee lots of normal, regular people are already doing those things around you every day. Personally I think, if someone is not doing themselves to your satisfaction, you are the one with the problem. You do you, let them do them.<br />
<br />
When we discuss legalizing pot, we have to be honest about what the real discussion is. If someone is a bad parent, a lazy bum, stealing to support their habit, using substances under-age-all of these things are already addressable with existing law. The legality of marijuana has nothing to do with it. If you blame pot for failings in the human race, we must revisit the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.<br />
<br />
Don't be a hypocrite.<br />
<br />
The goal of every true freedom lover should always be to have the least amount of laws (and control) over the lives of others while maintaining order and giving the <i>opportunity </i>to prosper in society.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-69024325769562826552015-01-24T11:32:00.000-06:002015-01-24T11:32:51.154-06:00What do we Want? WEED! When do we want it? NOW!There has been much discussion the last few years about legal weed. With many states enacting various pro-marijuana laws over the last 10 years (or more, for a select few) and in the more recent past, some states adding recreational use, debate rages across the land. Legalization, decriminalization, medical use, the options for not making felons out of the hippie next door and the vast array of options available to states-these are all points that must be considered. It is an issue fraught with opinions and limited research. Whether you smoke pot or not, it won't be long before there will be some type of marijuana legislation in your state. As a freedom lover and a capitalist, a free-market type of gal, I am excited for the prospect of it becoming legal in my home state. It is important that folks understand marijuana, the choices states face when changing their laws, how best to enact these changes so they are actually beneficial and how to provide a fair and reasonable path to that end.
<br />
<br />
It is my plan to provide a multi-part post over the next few days to provide some evidence for legalization in my state of Missouri. I think my state legislature should take up not only marijuana legislation, but also industrial hemp. I think it is important for many reasons. If you believe in freedom, it's important. If you believe in capitalism, it's important. If you want to protect the environment and find new, renewable resources, it's important. If you want to fill the state coffers with tax revenue from industry and create jobs, it's important. If you would like to see less folks get dragged into the criminal justice system, it's important. There is no reason why the left and the right can't get behind this movement <i>TOGETHER.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
A couple of points today, then I'll leave you to be excited and open minded about the information forthcoming on these pages-of which there will be plenty!<br />
<br />
First, I don't smoke pot. I have.....oh yes, in my youth I was quite the pot smoker. And so what? I gave it up in my 20's. I had a couple of kids. I had a good job. I started my own business. I just simply had other things I wanted to do. That was the choice I made, because it was right for me. When the girls were young, I crusaded against drugs of all types, as parents generally do. Did I feel hypocritical? Nope. Not in the least. As a parent, you always set limits on your kids. I also didn't encourage or tolerate under-age drinking or fast driving either. I didn't harp on the illegality of pot, because I always felt it being illegal was a non-starter, but I did point out the limits it would set on their life and, just like an alcoholic, if you (or someone you love) is <i>dependant </i>on any substance, it will send your life down a path you might not want. One of the more infamous lines in our household is "Choose your life, don't let it happen to you." In this debate I do think there is reasonable room for discussing age as a factor in the laws. But, just as most people I know don't want the government raising their kids, it is up to the parents to instill the core values they believe are right for their family in their kids. You do it with family, you do it with futures, you do it with alcohol......you already do it with drugs. Changing the law changes nothing when it comes to raising your kids.<br />
<br />
Second, I know lots of pot smokers. Tons. Some are business men and women, in professional positions. Some are lazy bums, with no job and no prospects. I wouldn't want them to be a big part of my life. What does this prove? That just like people you know in life, pot smokers are a large, diverse part of society. I guarantee at least one neighbor of yours smokes pot occasionally. Most likely there is someone within a 10 block radius of you that grows pot in their basement. And your doctor smokes it. Or banker. Or financial advisor. Probably a couple of teachers in your kids school. And, yes, that guy you work with, his brother-in-law that can't quite seem to get off the couch and get a job, he is just as likely to be a pot smoker as not......but frankly, pot isn't that guys problem. There is no good, clear-cut evidence that people like that wouldn't be bums, without motivation or prospects, even absent pot. This is very important. I also find the research pointing to lower IQ's and test scores to be suspect at best. And, the fact is, there are likely things we non-pot smokers do that aren't good for our bodies, our brains or our lives, everyday that are totally legal. Does watching too much TV make you less smart? Does spending too much time on the Internet slow down your ability to think? Does all that sitting and relaxing you're doing make you less healthy? I mean seriously, as adults, we all make choices everyday on how we want to live our lives. I don't put much weight on those studies because I know too many people who are extremely intelligent, are super motivated and have everything going for them that smoke pot. If they are slightly less than they could have been, who cares. They are still much more than I will ever be. It is not societies prerogative to decide how much of our potential we should live up to. Conversely, there are plenty of people who never smoke pot that don't live up to their full potential-<i>because they don't want to</i>.<br />
<br />
Finally, there are lots of choices that need to be made when debating the issue of legal weed and hemp. It is important you know the difference. It is also important to realize you can have one without the other, if you so choose and it is easy to tell the difference. Of note, if you do your research you will also find that allowing industrial hemp does not in fact lead to rampant weed growing. They are different crops and a good pot grower wouldn't be caught dead growing their prize pot-crop next to a field of hemp. Also, when considering the issue there are varying degrees of legalization including, decriminalization (better than nothing), medical use (kind of silly), home grows (excellent), retail sales (creates a government run cartel), and full out legalization (mostly good). These all present with positives and negatives, like anything else, and it is up to us to decide what is going to work best in our state. Don't worry, I will clarify my positions briefly shown above in later posts. This just gives you a peek at what I think. Also, don't send me a bunch of hate comments on the medical use remark up there. I don't think it is silly because I don't believe it works-I know it has many medicinal uses. I think it is silly because medical use only encourages people to go ahead and be law breakers. It sets up a system of people trying to skirt silly laws to get what they want. Can you imagine if we required that people have a medical reason for growing tomatoes or drinking booze? I mean, who cares what ones reason for smoking pot is-either it should be legal or not in the eyes of the law. We don't need to put people in ridiculous positions when simply allowing it lets medical and recreational users alike be law abiding citizens.<br />
<br />
I will leave you with this: I have a very liberal (and I know, <i>radical</i>) position that <b><i>ALL </i></b>drugs should be legal. However, for the purposes of this series I am sticking to the evil weed. I think it is the least offensive and most widely used, and I think it has a lot of value beyond just gettin' stoned and eating Twinkies. I hope you'll take the evidence I present to heart and really evaluate from a strong position, your stance on reefer.<br />
<br />
I look forward to hearing your thoughts too!<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-68125465515138440052013-12-20T11:26:00.001-06:002013-12-20T11:26:41.010-06:00Want to Homeschool in Ohio? I hope you've been deemed worthy.Want to homeschool in Ohio? You'll get to as soon as you are <a href="http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/law-would-allow-state-investigate-parents-permitting-homeschool" target="_blank">approved as a-ok</a> by government bureaucrats. You thought it was up to you? Oh silly subject, that's a ridiculous thing to think. Only the government is qualified to decide if you are homeschooling material.<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #8f8f8f; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.984375px; word-spacing: 3px;">It requires all parents who homeschool to undergo a social services investigation which would ultimately determine if homeschooling would be permitted. Social workers would have to interview parents and children separately, conduct background checks and determine whether homeschooling is recommended or not. If it is not recommended, parents would have to submit to an “intervention” before further consideration of their request to homeschool</span></blockquote>
The reasoning for attempting to pass this law is super simple. The government failed to do their job and protect a child from abuse. Abuse they were made aware of, did nothing to stop and the child died. So, their answer is to make more miserable failure of laws and take more of your rights away, further subjugating serfs to the masters, which will do nothing to stop abusers from killing children if the government isn't going to do the job they are already tasked with. It would seem there is no end to the things the government fails at, yet thinks that is there are just enough laws, they will some how succeed. This is false and losing our personal and parental rights will not make the children safer.<br />
<br />
Soon you will have to make a choice. Either all children are property of the state, to control and raise as they see fit or children are members of the family unit, where imperfect parents will make mistakes and people who have no business raising kids do. There is no other way for this to go. As parental rights are eroded to make up for the failures of government, soon they will come for your children too.<br />
<br />
It is going to be a very sad day when I say to my granddaughter, "I remember when we were free my dear."Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-88543258505448887712013-12-20T10:54:00.001-06:002013-12-20T10:58:21.933-06:00ObamaCare: So awesome, we keep exempting people from it.Today the White House <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html" target="_blank">announced </a>another, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366828/who-says-obama-hasnt-united-country-john-fund" target="_blank">Constitutionally illegal</a> (the fourteenth to be exact), executive policy change to the ObamaCare Law. They will allow folks with cancelled plans to purchase those crappy bare-bones “catastrophic” plans that weren't good enough when the law was first passed, but now that it is a complete disaster, those plans are fine.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hundreds of thousands of people whose health plans are being canceled because their coverage doesn’t meet Obamacare rules will be exempt next year from the U.S. mandate that all Americans carry medical insurance.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
People losing coverage will now be allowed to buy bare-bones “catastrophic” insurance that the law usually limits to those younger than age 30, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said yesterday. Others can opt out completely without the threat of the fines being imposed next year on the uninsured as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
So yesterday this type of plan wasn't good enough for any American, any where. Today, they are perfectly acceptable. And, they are only acceptable because your government <i>says </i>they are acceptable.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-24114412686438814042013-12-18T09:51:00.002-06:002013-12-18T09:51:55.175-06:00Baba Wawa thought Obama would replace JesusWe in the Tea Party always knew <b>they </b>though Obama was the next great coming of our Lord and Savior. From all the great prose that was written about his election, to his own <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto" target="_blank">declaration on election night</a> that the "The seas will recede. The planet will heal." But now after 5 years of disappointment <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQvRFrpKi-0" target="_blank">Baba Wawa</a> admits, during the Christmas season no-less, the result is so crushing, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/17/barbara-walters-obama-we-thought-he-was-going-be-next-messiah" target="_blank">because the expectation was so high</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
BARBARA WALTERS: Well, you've touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be - I shouldn't say this at Christmastime, but - the next messiah. And the whole ObamaCare, or whatever you want to call it, the Affordable Health Act, it just hasn't worked for him, and he’s stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It's very difficult when the expectations for you are very high. You're almost better off when they are low and then they rise and rise. His were very high and they’ve dropped. But you know, he still has several years to go. What does he have, three years, Piers? And, you know, there will be a lot of changes, one thinks in that time.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Luckily, I had no expectation other than what has happened. Obama's economic policies are a disaster, his healthcare law is a disaster, his gun confiscation desires are a disaster, and there is no doubt that his unfettered, unchecked, illegal immigration policy will be a disaster. My only hope at this point is that the vast majority of Americans will finally see how disastrous this man and more importantly, <i>these policies,</i> are for our country and in 2016 they will do something about it. I hate to say I told you so.......but I did.<br />
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-42640048675373833812013-12-18T09:27:00.002-06:002013-12-18T09:27:14.925-06:00Your Politically Correct Idiocy of the Day: 5-year old suspended for finger gun.<a href="http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/12/17/5-year-old-suspended-for-making-gun-gesture-with-hand/" target="_blank">Ban pointer-fingers now!</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
GASTON COUNTY, N.C. (CBS Charlotte) – A 5-year-old boy was reportedly suspended from school after making a gun gesture with his hand on the playground.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
His father, David Hendrix, was furious when he found out his son was issued a suspension for the gesture.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“He was playing army on the playground,” Hendrix told WBTV. “I just felt like the punishment was way too severe.”</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-72254076063809232012013-12-17T16:23:00.001-06:002013-12-17T18:36:57.195-06:00More proof Obama cares for no one else but himself<div dir="ltr">
The tech guys wanted to talk NSA, but Obama wasnt having any of that.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h4>
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525447/Obama-hijacks-tech-executive-meeting-changes-subject-NSA-surveillance-healthcare-gov-fixes.html">Obama 'hijacks' tech executive meeting</a> to make 'PR pitch' on Obamacare website fix instead of dealing with NSA surveillance</h4>
"....One executive said that meeting participants were dead-set against straying from the principal focus of the meeting – the uncomfortable and legally untenable position they are in when the National Security Agency demands access to their digital records.
The White House said in advance that the meeting would include a discussion of healthcare.gov, but the company executive said the only subject that mattered to the participants was the NSA.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'He basically hijacked the meeting,' the executive said. 'We all told the White House that we were only there to talk about what the NSA was up to and how it affects us.'
</blockquote>
<br />
You'll listen to how awesome Healthcare.gov is first peon!Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-50424562242420564982013-12-16T10:21:00.002-06:002013-12-16T10:21:46.598-06:00Kidney grown from stem cellsNow here is some news I can actually get behind!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="firstPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
Scientists in <strong><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/" style="color: #234b7b; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Australia</a> </strong>have grown the world's first kidney from stem cells – a tiny organ which could eventually help to reduce the wait for transplants.</div>
</div>
<div class="secondPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
The breakthrough, published in the journal<i> Nature Cell Biology</i>, followed years of research and involved the transformation of human skin cells into an organoid – a functioning "mini-kidney" with a width of only a few millimetres.</div>
</div>
<div class="thirdPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
Scientists are hoping to increase the size of future kidneys and believe the resulting organs will boost research and allow cheaper, faster testing of drugs. Within the next three to five years, the artificial organs could be used to allow doctors to repair damaged kidneys within the body, rather than letting diseases develop before proceeding with a transplant.</div>
</div>
<div class="fourthPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
"This is the first time anybody has managed to direct stem cells into the functional units of a kidney," Professor Brandon Wainwright, from the University of Queensland, told<i> The Telegraph</i>.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately it looks like it's a decade of more away. I can't wait that long.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.atraditionallifelived.com/2010/12/my-date-with-destiny-revisited-and.html" target="_blank">For me,</a> and thousands like me, please consider donation TODAY!Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-14057713431950166842013-12-15T01:55:00.005-06:002013-12-15T01:55:55.379-06:00Hey! Here is a GREAT way to boost those ObamaCare Enrollments-Unauthorized debits!Holy cow.....well that's one way to make sure folks buy the insurance they "put in their cart". Just debit that payment <a href="http://www.kgw.com/news/Enrollees-report-erroneous-debits-by-WA-Healthplanfinder-235244701.html" target="_blank">right out of their accounts</a> without asking.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
....<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Some of them say the website is mistakenly debiting their accounts.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Shannon Bruner of Indianola logged on to her checking account Monday morning, and found she was almost 800 dollars in the negative.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">“The first thing I thought was, ‘I got screwed,’” she said.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Bruners enrolled for insurance on the Washington Healthplanfinder website, last October. They say they selected the bill pay date to be December 24th. Instead the Washington Healthplanfinder drafted the 835 dollar premium Monday.</span> </blockquote>
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-57856182309288934902013-12-13T11:26:00.000-06:002013-12-13T11:26:00.343-06:00HHS wants insurers to cover people who have a plan in their basket-no payment requiredThere is no doubt <a href="http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hhs-pressure-insurers-provide-coverage-receiving-payment#.Uqo6MN9M2k4.twitter" target="_blank">they're doing this </a>so they can release supercalifragilisticexpialidocious numbers on enrollment in ObamaCare before the end of the year. Otherwise, the enrollment numbers are abysmal.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.33333em; word-spacing: 3px;">
More specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services will now pressure health insurers to retroactively accept payment for coverage that was supposed to begin on January 1, even if no payments have been made and no coverage has been formally granted. Furthermore, HHS wants insurers to pay out-of-network providers as though they were in-network “to ensure continuity of care for acute episodes,” and to pay for refill prescriptions under previous plans.”</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.33333em; word-spacing: 3px;">
In other words, if you applied for Obamacare, have not been enrolled, have not paid a dime, and get sick on January 1, the Obama administration now wants insurance companies to pay for your care <em>before you ever pay a dime</em>. Furthermore, they want you to get care for which you will not be approved under your insurance plan.</div>
</blockquote>
After I read through <a href="http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-29918_PI.pdf" target="_blank">the document</a>, it's clear what they are trying to do. With the extended coverage they are encouraging insurers to provide (i.e: out-of-network benefits, extended drug coverage) they don't want consumers to realize the full amount of coverage they are actually going to lose in this process. By hiding exactly what doctors or medications are out of reach in these new plans for the first 30 days, and having insurers in the Exchanges can wait to get the money, HHS is buying time. Insurers can wait to inform (by covering them for the first 30-days) consumers that their preferred doctors or life saving drugs are not covered-and consumers will have plans that don't meet their needs. It delays, until 30-days after the first of the year, the outrage that people will have when the full impact of this legislation begins to hit the masses. I'm sure it is the hope of the Administration that this will spread out the pain out enough that media coverage will not make it look so bad. And, it puts insurers in the position of waiting to receive payment on insurance plans that are most likely covering only the sickest and most needy patients.<br />
<br />
Exit question-Since when is it ok for the government to tell companies you must provide service to consumers even though they've made no effort to pay? How about if I start ordering from Amazon with a promise to pay within the next 30-days....how about the government orders that mandate.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-72992202219815609032013-12-12T19:36:00.001-06:002013-12-12T19:36:20.558-06:00Sheila Jackson Lee: Provide Unemployment Insurance for Working PeopleShut. Up.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jer5VNkMKOU" width="459"></iframe><br />
<br />
Seriously.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-68497515425163751032013-12-12T11:05:00.000-06:002013-12-12T11:05:24.923-06:00Wall Street Journal: ObamaCare enrollment numbers ~negative 4 millionIt is quite perplexing <i style="font-weight: bold;">why, </i>if the site is fixed and all the state exchanges are working teh awsum, the White House wouldn't be out on every cable channel joyously repeating the super spiffy ObamaCare enrollment numbers. You know, numbers that are ticking by so fast we had to grease the gears on the ticker-thing.<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304477704579252481397105554" target="_blank">Hmm</a>....<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then again, 41 states posted sign-ups only in the three or four figures, including eight states that run their own exchanges. Oregon managed to scrape up 44 people. Among the 137,204 federal sign-ups, no state is reaching the critical mass necessary for stable insurance prices.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The larger problem is that none of these represent true enrollments. HHS is reporting how many people "selected" a plan on the exchange, not how many people have actually enrolled in a plan with an insurance company by paying the first month's premium, which is how the private insurance industry defines enrollment. HHS has made up its own standard.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
What? This Administration making up it's own standards of success? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N3xVyGTXqQ" target="_blank">That's weird</a>.<br />
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-79330659173035368322013-12-11T21:19:00.002-06:002013-12-11T21:19:47.682-06:00Ryan-Murray deal will "Social Security" the TSA<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/11/ryan-murray-budget-deal-hikes-air-travel-security-tax-by-124/" target="_blank">Well if this isn't a laugh-riot to finish the day.</a> And by "laugh-riot" of course mean, "more stupid shit that just won't stop." The Ryan-Murray budget calls for more jingle to be added to the cost of every plane ticket purchased in America so travelers can pay for this stupid travesty of a budget bill:<br />
<blockquote>
Murray and Ryan settled on an agreement that would hit air travelers with a fee of $5.60 per one-way flight — or $11.20 for a round-trip excursion.
That’s 60 cents higher than the $5.00 fee the Department of Homeland Security requested, and represents a huge jump up from the current $2.50 minimum security fee.</blockquote>
To make this super awesome, conservative, small government math work, even though the TSA is massively un-funded-to the tune of some $5 billion-they felt it would be super awesome to pull a "Social Security" on them and put those additional funds in the general fund, rather than actually pay for the already underwater program.
<br />
<blockquote>
But the Ryan-Murray deal doesn’t earmark the new revenue for TSA. Instead, the funds will be deposited into the “general fund of the Treasury,” where they are supposed to help partially rollback the sequester and offset the automatic spending cuts set to begin in January.</blockquote>
I mean TRULY, what screams budget-conscience, smart, fiscal conservative, more than tacking fees on to a behemoth program that isn't paid for in order to fund other behemoth government programs that aren't paid for? So if this passes, I'm curious who WILL pay and how exactly will the TSA receive enough funding to continue to operate?<br />
<br />
I guess they could <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/10/21849757-tsa-confiscates-sock-monkeys-toy-gun" target="_blank">pass a special sock fee</a> to offset costs.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-36818673725229868612013-12-11T17:20:00.002-06:002013-12-11T17:20:31.870-06:00A review of why Boehner and Ryan can both suck it.<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.53125px;">From <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366056/conservative-hill-analysis-slams-murray-ryan-deal-andrew-stiles?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">National Review</a>:<br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.53125px;"><b>Number ONE on my lis</b>t: <i>Under the Ryan/Murray package, claimed savings during the BCA period <b>come predominately from fee/revenue increases rather than lower spending. So, it doesn’t reduce government, but rather enables a larger government.</b> </i>(Otherwise known as "I am SICK. TO.DEATH. of the lies")</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.53125px;">Here it is all broken down:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>Analysis of the Ryan/Murray Spending Package</strong>–It boosts spending right now, a total of $71 billion over the next two years—$63 billion in new discretionary spending, and $8 billion for a 3-month extension of the doc fix.<br />–The deficit increases under the Ryan/Murray plan for at least the next 3 years. Net deficit reduction would not begin until FY2017, after President Obama leaves office.<br />–It is not “paid for” over the Budget Control Act (BCA) window of 2014-2021, eroding the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts that were achieved in the BCA in exchange for the $2.1 trillion debt ceiling increase in 2011.<br />–Under the Ryan/Murray package, claimed savings during the BCA period come predominately from fee/revenue increases rather than lower spending. So, it doesn’t reduce government, but rather enables a larger government.<br />–About half of the $85 billion in “savings” in Ryan/Murray are achieved in 2022-2023, after the BCA period ends. Most of those savings are from the continuation of policies not included in the baseline, so are the result of baseline games rather than genuine reforms of bankrupt entitlements.<br />–Accounting for interest costs, which are higher near-term because of the new spending endorsed in the Ryan/Murray package, net reduction in the debt is no more than $15 billion in 10 years. The $23 billion in deficit reduction claimed by Ryan/Murray does not include interest costs.<br />–The Ryan/Murray package raids certain Federal trust funds, employing policies that should be used for fixing programs and possible deficit reduction instead for higher spending, like federal retirement contributions changes.<br />–This bill reduces retirement benefits for current military members and retirees—who gave 20 or more years of service—but spares current federal civilian employees from any changes to their retirement benefits.<br />–It wipes out the need for a budget resolution in 2015, allowing Senate Democrats to again avoid taking hard votes on budget issues on the Senate floor. And, with all the reserve funds included in the Ryan/Murray package, it allows Harry Reid and Senate Democrats the chance to duck votes on Budget Act points of order against specific bills. </blockquote>
Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-403803322007821204.post-37327120031365711012013-12-11T16:09:00.000-06:002013-12-11T16:09:02.020-06:00Rand Paul has it right...It is <a href="http://www.atraditionallifelived.com/2013/12/boehner-gets-pissy-with-conservatives.html" target="_blank">shameful</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px;">
Sen. Rand Paul added his name to the list of lawmakers opposing the bipartisan budget deal carved out between <a class="itxtnewhook itxthook" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/dec/11/rand-paul-budget-deal-shameful-huge-mistake/#" id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" style="background-image: none; border: 0px none transparent; color: #164a6e; cursor: pointer; display: inline; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap" id="itxthook0p" style="border: 0px; bottom: auto; display: inline !important; float: none !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; height: auto; left: auto; line-height: normal; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; position: static; right: auto; top: auto; white-space: nowrap !important;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap itxtnewhookspan" id="itxthook0w" style="border-color: transparent transparent rgb(0, 204, 0); border-style: none none solid; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; bottom: auto; color: #009900; display: inline; float: none; font-family: inherit; height: auto; left: auto; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px 0px 1px !important; position: static; right: auto; text-decoration: underline !important; top: auto; white-space: normal;">House</span><img class="itxtrst itxtrstimg itxthookicon" id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" style="border: 0px !important; bottom: auto; display: inline !important; float: none !important; height: auto !important; left: auto; margin: 0px !important; max-height: none; max-width: none !important; padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px !important; position: static; right: auto; top: auto; vertical-align: baseline !important; white-space: normal; width: auto !important;" /></span></a> and Senate negotiators, saying it is “shameful” to restore previously agreed to spending cuts in exchange for promises of future deficit reduction.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px;">
Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 presidential contender, said that the two-year spending proposal is like many that have come before it.</div>
<hr style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;" />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/tea-partiers-turn-capitol-hill-budget-deal/" style="color: #015fb6; padding: 2px 2px 2px 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">SEE RELATED: Tea partiers turn on Capitol Hill budget deal</a></div>
<hr style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 15px;" />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px;">
<b>“There is a recurring theme in Washington budget negotiations. It’s ‘I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today,’” Mr. Paul said in a statement. “I think it’s a huge mistake to <a class="itxtnewhook itxthook" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/dec/11/rand-paul-budget-deal-shameful-huge-mistake/#" id="itxthook1" rel="nofollow" style="background-image: none; border: 0px none transparent; color: #164a6e; cursor: pointer; display: inline; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap" id="itxthook1p" style="border: 0px; bottom: auto; display: inline !important; float: none !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; height: auto; left: auto; line-height: normal; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; position: static; right: auto; top: auto; white-space: nowrap !important;"><span class="itxtrst itxtrstspan itxtnowrap itxtnewhookspan" id="itxthook1w" style="border-color: transparent transparent rgb(0, 204, 0); border-style: none none solid; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; bottom: auto; color: #009900; display: inline; float: none; font-family: inherit; height: auto; left: auto; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px 0px 1px !important; position: static; right: auto; text-decoration: underline !important; top: auto; white-space: normal;">trade</span><img class="itxtrst itxtrstimg itxthookicon" id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" style="border: 0px !important; bottom: auto; display: inline !important; float: none !important; height: auto !important; left: auto; margin: 0px !important; max-height: none; max-width: none !important; padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px !important; position: static; right: auto; top: auto; vertical-align: baseline !important; white-space: normal; width: auto !important;" /></span></a> sequester cuts now for the promise of cuts later.” </b>(Emphasized because that is EXACTLY right)</div>
</blockquote>
Read more <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/dec/11/rand-paul-budget-deal-shameful-huge-mistake/" target="_blank">here</a>.Michellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00799580437940059865noreply@blogger.com0